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. Inselburg, 330 A.2d 457.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Lucius 663 A.2d 605 N.H. 1995
    Fuentes, 888 P.2d at 989; cf. State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974).
  • State v. Hermsdorf 605 A.2d 1045 N.H. 1992
    State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974) (indictment must inform defendant of offense charged with sufficient specificity so defense can be prepared and to protect against double jeopardy).
  • State v. DeMatteo 591 A.2d 1323 N.H. 1991
    Here, the indictment contained an adequate description of the necessary mens rea accompanying the alleged violation.
  • State v. Lachapelle 572 A.2d 584 N.H. 1990
    To meet this constitutional standard, a complaint must inform a defendant “of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare for trial and at the same time protect him from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.” State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 460, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980) (citing State v. Inselberg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974)).
  • State v. Settle 570 A.2d 895 N.H. 1990
    State v. Bean, 117 N.H 185, 188, 371 A.2d 1152, 1153 (1977); State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); R. McNamara, 1 New Hampshire Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 310, at 121-24 (Supp. 1988) and § 474, at 314-15 (1980).
  • State v. Kulikowski 564 A.2d 439 N.H. 1989
    The indictments thus clearly alleged the element of coercion “by threatening.” See State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974).
  • State v. Pelky 559 A.2d 1345 N.H. 1989
    We have before held that, in order for an indictment to be deemed constitutionally sufficient, it must “inform the defendant of the offense for which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.” State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974) (citations omitted); see State v. Stearns, 130 N.H. 475, 488, 547 A.2d 672, 679 (1988) (citations omitted
  • State v. Therrien 533 A.2d 346 N.H. 1987
    ” State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974) (citations omitted); that is, “so that he can prepare for trial,” State v. Rousten, 84 N.H. 140, 143, 146 A. 870, 872 (1929) (citation omitted), quoted in State v. Ball, supra at 63, 132 A.2d at 145; see State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 70, 442 A.2d 578, 581 (1982); State v. Bean, 117
  • State v. Lakin 517 A.2d 846 N.H. 1986
    The defendant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that its failure to specify a more exact date violated the standard of due process expressed in State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 330 A.2d 457 (1974), which held that the indictment must “inform the defendant of the offense for which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.” Id.
  • State v. Cote 493 A.2d 1170 N.H. 1985
    icitly rests on the requirement of part I, article 15, of the State Constitution, which we have interpreted as requiring that a complaint or indictment “inform the defendant of the offense for which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.” State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Allison 489 A.2d 620 N.H. 1985
    State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); Report of Commission to Recommend Codification of the Criminal Laws § 582:1 comment at 60 (1969); Model Penal Code § 223.1 comment 2(b) (1980).
  • State v. Portigue 481 A.2d 534 N.H. 1984
    State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 70, 442 A.2d 578, 581 (1982); State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974).
  • State v. Thresher 442 A.2d 578 N.H. 1982
    The indictment need not state the exact cause of death, RSA 601:6 (Supp. 1979), provided that all the elements of the crime charged are alleged, State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974), with sufficient specificity that the defendant can prepare his defense.
  • State v. Carroll 417 A.2d 8 N.H. 1980
    The test for the sufficiency of an indictment is whether the complaint informs the defendant of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare for trial and at the same time protect him from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.
  • State v. Sampson 413 A.2d 590 N.H. 1980
    State v. Bussiere, 118 N.H. 659, 392 A.2d 151 (1978); State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 330 A.2d 457 (1974).
  • State v. Champagne 399 A.2d 287 N.H. 1979
    “An indictment is sufficient only if it ‘clearly sets out all of the necessary elements constituting the offense.’ “State v. Bussiere, 118 N.H. 659, 661, 392 A.2d 151, 153 (1978), quoting State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457,459 (1974); N.H. CONST, pt.
  • State v. Bussiere 392 A.2d 151 N.H. 1978
    An indictment is sufficient only if it “clearly sets out all of the necessary elements constituting the offense.” State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); see N.H. CONST. pt.
  • State v. Manchester News Co. 387 A.2d 324 N.H. 1978
    ...” [2 — 5] An indictment or information “must inform the defendant of the offense for which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being twice put in jeopardy.” State v. Bean, 117 N.H. 185, 188, 371 A.2d 1152, 1154 (1977); State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974).
  • State v. Bean 371 A.2d 1152 N.H. 1977
    .” The allegations in an indictment must inform the defendant of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being twice put in jeopardy.
  • State v. Floyd 365 A.2d 738 N.H. 1976
    The *636 denial of the motion to set aside was proper.
  • State v. Harlan 364 A.2d 1254 N.H. 1976
    Our cases evince “a rule of long standing in this State that a complaint must inform the defendant of the offense for which he is charged with sufficient specificity so that he knows what he must be prepared to meet and so that he is protected from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.” State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 350 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); see State v. Bergeron, 115 N.H. 70, 71-72, 333 A.2d 721, 723 (1975); 2 F. Wharton, Criminal Procedure §§ 287-89 (Torcia ed. 1975).
  • State v. Acton 339 A.2d 4 N.H. 1975
    State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 828, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 258, 319 A.2d 286, 287 (1974); see Scott, supra at 514.
  • Welch v. Bergeron 337 A.2d 341 N.H. 1975
    Laws 1942, 459:7 (RSA 590:7, repealed November 1, 1973); see RSA 629:1 I; RL 96:1 (RSA 584:1, superseded by RSA 634:1 I, November 1, 1973); see State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 827, 330 A.2d 457, 460 (1974); Hickox v. J.B.
  • State v. Bergeron 333 A.2d 721 N.H. 1975
    State v. Inselburg, 114 N.H. 824, 828, 330 A.2d 457, 459 (1974); State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 258, 319 A.2d 286, 287 (1974); State v. Greenwood, 113 N.H. 625, 626, 312 A.2d 695, 696 (1973).
  • State v. Laponsee 333 A.2d 447 N.H. 1975
    ther there was evidence to support a finding of defendant’s guilt if the alleged acts were proved, but whether the complaint was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements of informing the defendant of the offense for which she was charged with sufficient specificity so that she knew what she must be prepared to meet and protected from being put in jeopardy once again for the same offense.