DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Superior Court, 208 A.2d 832.

13 citing documents.

  • State of New Hampshire v. Steven Laux 167 N.H. 698 N.H. 2015
    constitute the work product of the State and are privileged from pretrial discovery.” State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 230-31 (1965).
  • State v. Chagnon 662 A.2d 944 N.H. 1995
    Six years later, in State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965), we encouraged trial courts to grant more extensive discovery to criminal defendants.
  • State v. Allison 595 A.2d 1089 N.H. 1991
    “The purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense and to enable him to prepare an intelligent defense.” State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 232, 208 A.2d 832, 835 (1965) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Heath 523 A.2d 82 N.H. 1986
    Although the court later recognized an inherent judicial power to order discovery, State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472, 475, 416 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1980); State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 230, 208 A.2d 832, 834 (1965), the power is discretionary in nature, see id., and therefore inconsistent with the notion that a defendant has an unqualified constitutional entitlement to discovery of any specific variety.
  • State v. Osborne 402 A.2d 493 N.H. 1979
    State v. Healy, 106 N.H. 308, 210 A.2d 486 (1965); State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965); State ex rel.
  • American Federation of Employees, Local No. 572 v. City of Dover 345 A.2d 912 N.H. 1975
    Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 153 A.2d 403 (1959); State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965).
  • State v. Booton 329 A.2d 376 N.H. 1974
    State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 230, 208 A.2d 832, 833-34 (1965); Annot., 7 A.L.R.3d 8 (1966).
  • State v. Bacon 319 A.2d 636 N.H. 1974
    It is evident the rule is directed to the discovery of statements made after a crime has been committed and not conversation which is concomitant with the commission of the crime, as in this case.
  • State ex rel. Town of Hanover v. Hanover District Court 317 A.2d 785 N.H. 1974
    In criminal cases we have exercised this authority sparingly on behalf of the prosecution in defining the limits of the authority of the trial court to order discovery in a criminal case (State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965); State ex rel.
  • State v. Greenwood 312 A.2d 695 N.H. 1973
    “It has long been the law in this jurisdiction that to meet constitutional requirements an indictment must inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation with sufficient definiteness so that he can prepare for trial.” State v. Panichas, 107 N.H. 359, 361, 222 A.2d 211, 213 (1966); State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965); State v. Rousten, 84 N.H. 140, 146 A. 870 (1929).
  • State v. Underwood 270 A.2d 599 N.H. 1970
    The indictments in this case fully answered this requirement and the motion was properly denied.
  • State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1966