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. Larochelle, 297 A.2d 223.

13 citing documents.

  • State v. Coombs 821 A.2d 1030 N.H. 2003
    At oral argument, the State relied upon State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392 (1972), to contend that the blood test report itself is sufficiently reliable to be admitted without allowing confrontation of any witness.
  • State v. Cook 610 A.2d 800 N.H. 1992
    We recognize, however, “that evidence admitted under a state-created exception to the hearsay rule may nevertheless infringe constitutional rights.” State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 397, 297 A.2d 223, 226 (1972).
  • State v. Christensen 607 A.2d 952 N.H. 1992
    In State v. LaRochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 297 A.2d 223 (1972), we decided a question similar to that presented here.
  • State v. Kiewert 605 A.2d 1031 N.H. 1992
    eager to equate them.’” State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 395, 297 A.2d 223, 225 (1972) (quoting Note, Confrontation and the Hearsay Rule, 75 Yale L.J.
  • State v. Place 513 A.2d 321 N.H. 1986
    As we have held in the past, the introduction of the results of a blood alcohol content test, without testimony from the person who conducted the test personally verifying the procedure and its results, does not violate an individual’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
  • State v. Riley 490 A.2d 1362 N.H. 1985
    State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 397-98, 297 A.2d 223, 227 (1972); accord State v. Amato supra (official report is conclusive evidence of conduct and result of test even though the person who tested the breathalyzer machine was not produced at trial).
  • State v. Gilbert 429 A.2d 323 N.H. 1981
    He argues that under our holding in State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 396-97, 297 A.2d 223, 226 (1972), the out-of-court declaration is admissible only if it is buttressed by sufficient “indicia of reliability” to justify the declarant’s absence at trial.
  • State v. Kupetz 350 A.2d 335 N.H. 1975
    The results of the machine tests are not affected by the officer’s opinion as to the sobriety of the subject.
  • State v. Amato 348 A.2d 339 N.H. 1975
    In order to compel the State to have in attendance at trial the person who tests and verifies the accuracy of equipment and materials employed to take the samples and conduct the blood alcohol tests, that person must come within the statutory language of *641 RSA 262-A:69-k (Supp. 1973).
  • State v. Gillis 321 A.2d 576 N.H. 1974
    RSA 262-A:69-k (Supp. 1973); see State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 297 A.2d 223 (1972).
  • State v. Russell 317 A.2d 781 N.H. 1974
    There is no transcript of the evidence but the district court’s ruling is supported by a written opinion relying solely on our decision in State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 297 A.2d 223 (1972).
  • Harlan v. State 308 A.2d 856 N.H. 1973
    Plaintiff’s argument that a driver is in need of counsel in deciding whether to submit to a breathalyzer test cannot be entertained in light of our decision in State v. LaRochelle, 112 N.H. 392, 297 A.2d 223 (1972).
  • State v. Dunsmore 297 A.2d 230 N.H. 1972
    The first issue, involving defendant’s confrontation claim, is decided adversely to him by State v. Larochelle, 112 N.H. 392, (1972), decided this day.