Rule 5C Initial Proceedings for Defendants Arrested or Summonsed for a Class C or Higher Crime

Advisory Committee Notes—2000

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C.] New Rule 5C governs initial proceedings in the Superior Court following the filing of an indictment or information (with waiver of indictment). It is substantively similar to Rule 5, as newly amended, except in three particulars. First, in recognition of the significant logistical burden created by this new rule on the parties, courts and sheriffs, including the need on occasion to physically take the defendant to a different county in order to meet the rule deadline, the time period is set at 72 hours rather than 48. Setting the time period at 72 hours rather than 48, unlike Rule 4A, does not implicate County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). Second, in view of the 72 hour period, notice by the custodian to the attorney for the state if appearance has not taken place is set at 48 hours rather than 36. Third, the new rule makes clear that a probable cause determination under Rule 4A is inapplicable. See also Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 5.

Advisory Committee Notes—2001

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C(c).] See Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 5(c).

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C(d).] This amendment redesignates current paragraph 5C(c) to be paragraph 5C(d). See Advisory Note to M.R. Crim. P. 5C(c).

Advisory Committee Note – March 2005

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C.] The amendment makes changes reflecting that the Superior Court is now the court 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. See also Advisory Committee Note to M.R. Crim. P. 3(a) and (b). The change also adopts a 48- hour requirement, similar to Rule 5 for first appearances for persons in custody.

In subsection (c) the amendment includes a new process to contemplate waiver of indictment and entry of any plea upon a first appearance. Any of the four alternative pleas, not guilty, guilty, nolo contendere, or not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, could be entered in this process. However, a negotiated acceptance of a plea of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity may not occur without an evidentiary hearing. See M.R. Crim. P. 11A(h).

Subsection (d) is similar to M.R. Crim. P. 5(d) for the District Court. It authorizes the Superior Court to conduct an arraignment and call upon a defendant to plead in cases where the case may have been initiated by filing a felony charge in the Superior Court, but at the first appearance, only misdemeanor charges and no related felony charges remain for prosecution. In such cases, consistent with Rule 5(d) and 22(a), a defendant must file a demand for a jury trial within 21 days of arraignment or be deemed to have waived the right to trial by a jury. The rule does not include a provision similar to Rule 5(d)(3) as the fine payment requirement would have been separately stated pursuant to Rule 5(b)(5).

Subsection (d) regarding arraignment of counsel and plea is redesignated subsection (e).

Subsection (f) is added to clarify that once a Superior Court proceeding is initiated after a person is arrested or summonsed for a felony charge, the Superior Court retains jurisdiction of all related misdemeanor charges, even if the felony charge is later dismissed or amended so that no felony charge remains pending.

Advisory Note—July 2010

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C.] The amendment modifies Rule 5C in six respects.

First, it eliminates the unnecessary distinction between the Superior Court and the District Court by making the rule applicable to initial proceedings occurring in either trial court for persons arrested or summonsed for at least one Class C or higher crime, accompanied or unaccompanied by related Class D or Class E crimes. See also Advisory Note—July 2010 to M.R. Crim. P. 1.

Second, it adds clarity to subdivision (a), paragraphs (1) and (2) and subdivision (b) by adding in the first sentence of each “for a Class C or higher crime (accompanied or unaccompanied by related Class D or Class E crimes).”

Third, the reference in subdivision (b) to the required immediate payment of any fine is eliminated, as the statute requiring that statement at initial appearance has been repealed.

Fourth, the substance of Rule 5, subdivision (c) currently repeated in subdivision 5C(d) is deleted in favor of simply directing that the court “provide to the person the further statement required by Rule 5(c).”

Fifth, the direction to admit the person to bail is moved from the list of rights the person is to be informed about to the end of subdivision (b) as a direction for action the court is to take in the proceeding.

Sixth, the same changes are made to subdivision (e) that are made to Rule 5, subdivision (d). See Advisory Note—July 2010 to M.R. Crim. P. 5.

Seventh, in subdivision (f) a reference is added to “a court with a unified criminal docket.”

Advisory Note—July 2012

[M.R. Crim. P. 5C.] The amendment to subdivision (b) conforms the introductory language of subdivision (b) to that in Rule 5(b) and, as in Rule 5(b), the option that the charged defendant may waive being informed by the court of the constitutional rights listed therein is eliminated. Waiver of such rights may be exercised only by the defendant’s counsel. See also Advisory Note – July 2012 to M.R. Crim. P. 5(b) and (c).

The amendment also replaces the word “person,” or a variant thereof, with the word “defendant,” or its variant, throughout subdivision (b). See also

Advisory Note – July 2012 to M.R. Crim. P. 5(b) and (c).

Finally, the provision covering admitting a defendant to bail is deleted as unnecessary because the procedure for setting preconviction bail, including the directive for court action, is addressed by statute in the Maine Bail Code.

The amendment modifies subdivision (d) in three respects.

First, it changes the current reference to “Rule 5(c)” to read “Rule 5(b), paragraphs (4) and (5)” both because the rights addressed in subdivision (b) and (c) of Rule 5 have now been collapsed into a single subdivision (b) [see

Advisory Note – July 2012 to M.R. Crim. P. 5(b) and (c)] and because the initial statement by the court in Rule 5C(b) already provides for the first three rights contained in Rule 5(b).

Second, it adds a directive that the court also comply with requirements of new subdivision (c) of Rule 5.

Third, it replaces the word “person,” or a variant thereof, with the word “defendant,” or its variant, throughout subdivision (d). See also Advisory Note – July 2012 to M.R. Crim. P. 5(b) and (c).

See also Advisory Note – July 2012 to M.R. Crim. P. 5(b) and (c).