Advisory Note – May 2025
The change is made to clarify the nature of the oath required by 15 M.R.S. § 708 in anticipation of electronic filing of criminal complaints by prosecutors, who will be mandatory filers under the Maine Rules of Electronic Court Systems. The language in subdivision (b)(1) as amended reflects that a complaint signed by the attorney for the State is certified “on information and belief” and is not an oath that the signatory has personal knowledge of the facts underlying the complaint. The amendment tracks the current language in Rule 7(c) requiring the attorney for the State to sign and certify an information.
Advisory Note – June 2016
Rule 3(g) is amended to reflect the definition of “Statute Sequence Number” in Rule 57(h), which expressly excludes any criminal charge that does not require an Arrest Tracking Number (ATN) under Rule 57(a).
Committee Advisory Note [December 2014]
The Rule parallels the content of Rule 3 of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure but differs in the following respects.
First, in subdivision (a) the word “that” replaces the word “which” to reflect modern usage.
Second, in subdivisions (b) and (d) the word “court” replaces the words “a Superior Court justice or a District Court judge” because the word “court” is now expressly defined in Rule 57(d) to mean both a Superior Court justice and a District Court judge “unless the context clearly indicates only one or the other.” See Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] to M.R.U. Crim. P. 57(d).
Third, in subdivision (d) and (f) the letter “s” in the word “state” when appearing in the term “attorney for the State” is capitalized because the word “state” in this context refers to a government actor.
Fourth, in subdivision (d) the word “before” replaces the phrase “prior to” to reflect modern usage.
Fifth, a new subdivision (g) is added requiring that each count of the complaint identify the Statute Sequence Number assigned by the Maine Judicial Information System (MEJIS) to each crime or crime variant. The term “Statute Sequence Number” is defined in Rule 57(h). See also Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] to M.R.U. Crim. P. 57(h).
[Advisory Notes to former Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure]
Advisory Committee Note—1981
[M.R. Crim. P. 3.] The added provision is presently contained in the Criminal Code, 17-A M.R.S. § 5(2)(A). The Criminal Law Advisory Commission recommends that it be transferred to the Criminal Rules, for the reason that it is a rule of pleading that properly belongs with procedural rules rather than in the substantive criminal law.
Advisory Committee Note—1983
[M.R. Crim. P. 3.] The class of crime may depend upon whether or not the crime is a first offense. For example, a Class D or E theft may be enhanced to a Class C theft if the defendant has two prior theft convictions. 17-A M.R.S. § 362(3)(C). The amendment seeks to make clear that the complaint should charge the enhanced crime and that the District Court should hold only a bind-over hearing on the charge. There is no need for an ancillary complaint in the District Court since the District Court has no trial jurisdiction. See 15 M.R.S. § 757 (As amended by Laws, 1982, c. 679, § 1). If the District Court binds over the defendant, then the grand jury may indict for the Class D theft and also return an ancillary indictment charging the Class C crime of habitual theft, as was done in State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1981).
Advisory Committee Note—1989
[M.R. Crim. P. 3.] Rule 3 combines provisions of both Rules 3, adopting the format of District Court Rule 3.
The definition of “oath” in subdivision (b) is derived from Rule 54(c).
District Court Rule 3(e) is deleted because the bill of particulars is treated in Rule 16(c)(2).
Advisory Committee Note—1990
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(b).] Rule 3 is amended to delete the requirement that probable cause be established at the time a complaint is issued when a defendant is not in custody or before the court. This requirement was imposed on the assumption that an arrest warrant would be necessary in any case where the defendant was not in custody or before the court. See M.R. Crim. P. 3, Reporter's Note. This assumption is not accurate in the District Court, as summonses are regularly used in minor criminal cases. Rule 4 establishes the procedure for obtaining an arrest warrant and can be used when an arrest warrant is needed. Continuing the requirement of establishing probable cause in every case in which a complaint is issued would place a substantial administrative burden on the District Court.
Advisory Committee Note—1998
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(e).]This new subdivision incorporates the last sentence of now repealed Rule 5A, section b into Rule 3 dealing with the complaint. See Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 5.
Advisory Committee Notes—2000
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(a).] This amendment is in response to the recent repeal of 15 M.R.S. § 757 and the enactment of 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A in its stead. See P.L. 1999, ch. 196, effective September 18, 1999. New subsection 1 of section 9-A directs, in relevant part, that “[t]he Supreme Judicial Court shall provide by rule the manner of alleging the prior conviction in a charging instrument . . . .” Because the Maine Judicial Information System equates new criminal conduct with any new charging instrument or count thereof, the newly created subdivision prohibits the use of an ancillary charging instrument or count and requires instead that the allegation of a prior conviction be part of the allegations constituting the principal offense. For efficiency purposes the newly created subdivision also allows a prior conviction allegation accompanying a principal offense in one count to be incorporated by reference in another count.
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(d).] See Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 7(e); See also Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 3(a).
Advisory Committee Note—2003
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(a).] The amendment replaces the terms “felony” and “misdemeanor” in subdivision (a) with appropriate references to the Maine Criminal Code crime classification scheme and, by implication, the unclassed crime of murder.
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(e).] This amendment deletes subdivision (e). See Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 10.
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(f).] This amendment replaces the “incident number” as a unique identifier with the “Arrest Tracking Number” and the “Charge Tracking Number.” The change reflects the policy for the use of unique identifiers, at the charge level, recently adopted by the Maine Criminal Justice Information Systems Policy Board (16 M.R.S. §§ 633-637 (Supp. 2003)). Both the “Arrest Tracking Number” and the “Charge Tracking Number” are defined in Rule 57. See also Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 57.
Advisory Committee Note – March 2005
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(a) and (b).] These amendments are part of a broader recommendation made by a team of trial court justices and judges and clerks of court to streamline the process for initiating a criminal case that involves murder or at least one Class A, Class B, or Class C crime, accompanied or unaccompanied by related Class D or Class E crimes. Formerly such a case was required to be commenced in the District Court and, unless waived or preempted, necessitated that a bind-over hearing be held pursuant to Rule 5A. The new process eliminates the need for a bind-over hearing by starting the case in the Superior Court rather than the District Court. In this regard, such a case will be commenced by filing a criminal complaint directly in the Superior Court, unless an indictment has already been returned or an information filed (except as to a murder charge). The new process, unlike that which it replaces, encourages combining charges of Class C or higher crimes with charges of Class D or Class E crimes in the same charging instrument when permitted by Rule 8(a). Finally, the new process expressly recognizes the authority of Superior Court justices to approve criminal complaints filed in the Superior Court. The District Court still remains the court for initiating a criminal case that involves only Class D or Class E crimes.
Advisory Committee Note – March 2005
[M.R. Crim. P. 3(d).] This amendment clarifies that a complaint may be amended by the state as a matter of right at any time prior to completion of a defendant’s initial appearance in District Court or Superior Court.
Advisory Note – June 2006
M.R. Crim. P. 3(f) and (g). The amendment redesignates subdivision (f) and (g) to be (e) and (f) respectively. This redesignation was overlooked when former subdivision (e) was deleted, effective January 1, 2004. See Me. Rptr., 832-845 A.2d XXIV-XXV and XXXV.
Advisory Note – May 2014
The amendment modifies Rule 3, subdivision (a) by adding the words “or other location” after the word “municipality” to make clear that not every location within the criminal jurisdiction of the State in which a crime is alleged to have occurred is physically within a municipality. The most common examples are unorganized territories and locations outside any municipality on the Atlantic Ocean. In the case of unorganized territories, some have formal place names while others do not and thus necessitate referring to a numbered township and range, for example “T9R8.” In the latter circumstance, it is unnecessary to include further identification information such as “WELS.” In the case of Atlantic Ocean locations, except for islands with formal place names, location is best identified by utilizing GPS coordinates.
