Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Kenna, 374 A.2d 427.
-
State v. Samuel Pennock
168 N.H. 294
N.H. 2015
utterance is made in response to a question does not necessarily bar its admission as an excited utterance.” State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 308 (1977).
-
Simpson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
744 A.2d 625
N.H. 1999
t appear to the satisfaction of the presiding justice that the utterance was a spontaneous verbal reaction to some startling or shocking event, made at a time when the speaker was still in a state of nervous excitement produced by that event and before he had time to contrive or misrepresent.” State v. Hudson, 121 N.H. 6, 11, 425 A.2d 255, 257 (1981) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 307, 374 A.2d 427, 429 (1977).
-
State v. MacArthur
644 A.2d 68
N.H. 1994
See, e.g., State v. Roberts, 131 N.H. 512, *600 518, 556 A.2d 302, 306 (1989); State v. Glidden, 123 N.H. 126, 133, 459 A.2d 1136, 1140 (1983); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977).
-
State v. Lemieux
615 A.2d 635
N.H. 1992
The testimony at issue was therefore merely cumulative.
-
State v. Torrence
587 A.2d 1227
N.H. 1991
State v. Pugliese, 122 N.H. 1141, 1147-48, 455 A.2d 1018, 1022 (1982); State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977).
-
State v. Woods
546 A.2d 1073
N.H. 1988
To provide this substitute guarantee it must appear to the satisfaction of the presiding justice that the utterance was a spontaneous verbal reaction to some startling or shocking event, made at a time when the speaker was still in a state of nervous excitement produced by that event, and before he had time to contrive or misrepresent.” State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 307, 374 A.2d 427, 429 (1977) (quoting Semprini v. Railroad, 87 N.H. 279, 280, 179 A. 349, 350 (1935)).
-
State v. Coppola
536 A.2d 1236
N.H. 1987
Under such circumstances the fact that the victim gave her statements in answer to questions is in no way inconsistent with the probable spontaneity of her responses, see State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 374 A.2d 427 (1977), and nothing in the record casts any doubt on admissibility under Rule 803(2).
-
State v. Shannon
484 A.2d 1164
N.H. 1984
Although in certain circumstances hearsay statements may be characterized as merely *661 cumulative, thus not constituting reversible error, see State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977), this is not such a case.
-
State v. Berry
470 A.2d 881
N.H. 1983
Although the United States Supreme Court has not held that, absent actual suppression, the non-preservation or destruction of evidence by the State is a violation of due process, see United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356 (1969); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 310, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977), this court has recognized that the right to due process is implicated when evidence in a criminal trial is destroyed, State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 629, 465 A.2d 919, 921 (1983) (citing United Stat
-
Vatistas v. Hickens
431 A.2d 121
N.H. 1981
State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977); see Patten v. Newton, 102 N.H. 444, 447, 159 A.2d 809, 811 (1960).
-
State v. Hudson
425 A.2d 255
N.H. 1981
State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 307-09, 374 A.2d 427, 429-30 (1977); State v. Martineau, 114 N.H. 552, 556-58, 324 A.2d 718, 721-22 (1974); Murray v. Railroad, 72 N.H. 32, 38, 54 A. 289, 292 (1903).
-
State v. Donovan
419 A.2d 1102
N.H. 1980
State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 374 A.2d 427 (1977); State v. Sturtevant, 96 N.H. 99, 70 A.2d 909 (1950).
-
State v. Plummer
374 A.2d 431
N.H. 1977
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony as to the deceased’s statements describing his assailant.