Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Breest, 387 A.2d 643.
-
State v. Robert Breest
155 A.3d 541
N.H. 2017
denied, 439 U.S. 933 (1978); Breest v. Perrin, 125 N.H. 703 (1984); State v. Breest, 124 N.H. 339 (1983), rev’d, Breest v. Cunningham, 752 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1985); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529 (1979); State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416 (1978), cert.
-
State v. Etienne
35 A.3d 523
N.H. 2011
“Not every nondisclosure is necessarily error, and a conviction need not be set aside unless a nondisclosure had an influence on the jury.” State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419 (1978).
-
State v. Theodosopoulos
893 A.2d 712
N.H. 2006
State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419 (1978) (prosecutor is not required to disclose everything that might influence a jury, all investigatory work, or prosecutor’s complete file).
-
State v. Laurie
653 A.2d 549
N.H. 1995
The federal standard “does not demand that everything that might influence a jury be disclosed, or that there be permitted a complete discovery of all investigatory work or an examination of the State’s complete file.” State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978) (citing Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795 (1972)), cert.
-
State v. Ramos
553 A.2d 275
N.H. 1988
The key question, then, is whether the informant’s testimony was material to the defendant’s defense.
-
State v. Dukette
506 A.2d 699
N.H. 1986
State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. at 629, 465 A.2d at 921; State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419-20, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978) (quoting United States v. Agurs, supra at 112-13 (1976)), cert.
-
State v. Gibbs
492 A.2d 1367
N.H. 1985
If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112-13 (1976), quoted in State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 420, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978).
-
Breest v. Perrin
484 A.2d 1192
N.H. 1984
See, e.g., State v. Breest, 124 N.H. 339, 469 A.2d 1339 (1983); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979); State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 387 A.2d 643 (1978), cert.
-
State v. Lovely
480 A.2d 847
N.H. 1984
He claims that the trial court’s failure to grant his motion to set aside the verdict, because of this nondisclosure and the victim’s and the *698 prosecutor’s misrepresentations with respect to plea negotiations, was reversible error.
-
State v. Berry
470 A.2d 881
N.H. 1983
State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978); see also United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-
State v. Mitchell
470 A.2d 885
N.H. 1983
State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978); Brady v. Maryland, 373 *213 U.S. 83 (1963); see also State v. Berry, 124 N.H. 203, 470 A.2d 881 (1983).
-
State v. Miskolczi
465 A.2d 919
N.H. 1983
“A three-pronged examination is in order: first, was the evidence material to the question of guilt or the degree of punishment; second, was the defendant prejudiced by its destruction; and third, was the government acting in good faith when it destroyed the evidence.” United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 227 (1st Cir. 1978); see State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 419-20, 387 A.2d 643, 645 (1978), cert.
-
State v. Gullick
411 A.2d 1113
N.H. 1980
e.g., State v. Arthur supra; State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, 387 A.2d 643 (1978).
-
State v. Lavallee
400 A.2d 480
N.H. 1979
In this context, the prosecutor’s references to the defendant’s violent character were not sufficiently improper to compel a new trial.
-
State v. Arthur
391 A.2d 884
N.H. 1978
United States v. Trainor, 423 F.2d 263 (1st Cir. 1970).