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. Thorp, 358 A.2d 655.

17 citing documents.

  • State v. Whittey 599 A.2d 117 N.H. 1991
    New Hampshire cases decided under the common law, however, uniformly applied the balancing test articulated in Roviaro, see State v. Ramos, 131 N.H. 276, 279-81, 553 A.2d 275, 277-78 (1988); State v. Svoleantopoulos, supra at 473-75, 543 A.2d at 411-12; State v. Berger, 125 N.H. 83, 92-93, 480 A.2d 27, 33 (1984); State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 310, 358 A.2d 655, 661 (1976); and the comments following Rule 509 correctly note that “New Hampshire law is consistent with this rule.” This fact is not d
  • State v. Ramos 553 A.2d 275 N.H. 1988
    State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561, 391 A.2d 884 (1978); State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 358 A.2d 655 (1976).
  • State v. Hazen 552 A.2d 77 N.H. 1988
    “The corroboration of some information provided by an informant deserves weight in assessing that informant’s credibility and the reliability of the information provided.” State v. Andrews, 125 N.H. at 164, 480 A.2d at 893 (citing State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 307, 358 A.2d 655, 659 (1976)).
  • State v. Maguire 523 A.2d 120 N.H. 1987
    However, probable cause for a warrantless search is not required to be greater than that for a search pursuant to a warrant.
  • State v. Bradberry 522 A.2d 1380 N.H. 1986
    The standard for the determination of probable cause in the first instance is objective, see State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 306-07, 358 A.2d 655, 658-59 (1976), and hypertechnicality in interpretation of affidavits is not favored, State v. Doyle, 126 N.H. 153, 160, 489 A.2d 639, 644 (1985).
  • State v. MacDonald 523 A.2d 35 N.H. 1986
    State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 308, 358 A.2d 655, 660 (1976) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971)); U.S. Const. amend.
  • State v. Cote 493 A.2d 1170 N.H. 1985
    State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 310, 358 A.2d 655, 661 (1976); Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957); N.H. R. Ev.
  • State v. Wong 486 A.2d 262 N.H. 1984
    Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70 (1966); State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 306, 358 A.2d 655, 658 (1976).
  • State v. Andrews 480 A.2d 889 N.H. 1984
    The corroboration of some information provided by an informant deserves weight in assessing that informant’s credibility and the reliability of the information provided.
  • State v. Berger 480 A.2d 27 N.H. 1984
    This court has not adopted a fixed rule regarding disclosure of the identity of informants for the State.
  • State v. Ball 471 A.2d 347 N.H. 1983
    I, art. 19); see also State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 306, 358 A.2d 655, 658 (1976).
  • State v. Merski 437 A.2d 710 N.H. 1981
    the context of the disclosure of medical testimony and records in a recommittal hearing to determine dangerousness (current version at RSA 651:ll-a (Supp. 1979)), we stated that “the privileges in question are not absolute and must yield when disclosure of the information concerned is considered essential.” State v. Kupchun, 117 N.H. 412, 415, 373 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1977); cf. State v. Thorp, *912 116 N.H. 303, 310, 358 A.2d 655, 661 (1976).
  • State v. Theodosopoulos 409 A.2d 1134 N.H. 1979
    Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978); State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 308, 358 A.2d 655, 660 (1976), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971); see U.S. CONST, amend.
  • State v. Vail 274 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Spero 371 A.2d 1155 N.H. 1977
    State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 307, 358 A.2d 655, 659 (1976); United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983, 986 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Roth, 391 F.2d 507, 511 (7th Cir. 1967).
  • State v. Floyd 365 A.2d 738 N.H. 1976
    Reasonable and prudent persons in their position, possessing their knowledge, would assuredly believe that evidence could be found indicating that a crime had been committed.
  • State v. Landry 358 A.2d 661 N.H. 1976
    Compare RSA 594:2 I with RSA 594:10 I. “The presence or absence of probable cause is determined by reference to an objective standard designed to measure the probability or likelihood of criminal activity based upon a given set of facts and circumstances.” State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 358 A.2d 655 (1976).