Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Duke, 123 A.2d 745.
- State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
-
State v. Vandebogart
652 A.2d 671
N.H. 1994
“The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards but also to discover the truth.” State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 293, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956).
- State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Hickey
523 A.2d 60
N.H. 1986
The rationale for admitting such evidence was explained in State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 123 A.2d 745 (1956): “When a defendant voluntarily testifies in a criminal case, he asks the jury to accept his word.
- State v. Brooks 495 A.2d 1258 N.H. 1985
-
State v. Vanguilder
493 A.2d 1116
N.H. 1985
In ruling upon the admissibility of the three prior convictions in question, the trial court relied in part upon this court’s holding in State v. Robinson, 123 N.H. 532, 465 A.2d 1201 (1983), which in turn has its precedential base in the earlier holdings in State v. Wayne Kelley, 120 N.H. 14, 18-19, 413 A.2d 300, 303-04 (1980), and State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 293-94, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956).
- State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Cobb
465 A.2d 1203
N.H. 1983
The admissible convictions were obtained in 1979 and 1981, and their value was therefore enhanced by their proximity to the date of the trial.
-
State v. Hopps
465 A.2d 1206
N.H. 1983
In conjunction with the 1978 conviction, the burglary conviction aided the jury in determining “what sort of person [was] asking them to take his word.” State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 293, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956).
-
State v. Robinson
465 A.2d 1201
N.H. 1983
He cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice but, if he elects to testify, an immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute.” As we indicated in State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 293-94, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956), the purpose of permitting impeachment with prior criminal convictions is to permit the trier of fact to evaluate properly the testimony of the defendant.
- State v. Leecy 294 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1980
-
State v. Staples
415 A.2d 320
N.H. 1980
though the violations are not concerned solely with crimes involving 'dishonesty and false statement.’ ” State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 293-94, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956); State v. Cote, supra at 296, 235 A.2d at 115.
-
State v. Wayne Kelley
413 A.2d 300
N.H. 1980
State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 400 A.2d 480 (1979); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), cert.
- State v. Brouillette 286 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1979
-
State v. Mann
297 A.2d 664
N.H. 1972
Here the trial court excluded the question relating to prior convictions under the guidelines for the exercise of his discretion laid down in State v. Cote, supra, and State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 294, 123 A.2d 745, 746 (1956).
-
State v. Pevear
270 A.2d 598
N.H. 1970
State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 295-96, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15 (1967); State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 123 A.2d 745 (1956).