Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Wentworth, 395 A.2d 858.
-
State v. Wheeler
416 A.2d 1384
N.H. 1980
Our sentencing statute, RSA ch. 651, and our case law, see, e.g., State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832, 395 A.2d 858 (1978) and State v. Streeter, 113 N.H. 402, 308 A.2d 535 (1973), make clear that sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court unless the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime.
-
State v. Koski
411 A.2d 1122
N.H. 1980
We hold that the charge considered as a whole made the requirement of knowledge of lack of privilege or license sufficiently clear, and that it is improbable that the jury could have been misled.
-
Belleau v. Hopewell
411 A.2d 456
N.H. 1980
Taking the trial court’s charge as a whole, we find that “it fairly presented the case to the jury in such a manner that no injustice was done to the legal rights of the litigants.” Poulin v. Provost, 114 N.H. 263, 264, 319 A.2d 296, 297 (1974); see State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832, 395 A.2d 858 (1978).
-
State v. Mullen
406 A.2d 698
N.H. 1979
The purpose of all sentencing is to deter violations of the law by the defendant and others.
-
Distinguished
Martineau v. Perrin
404 A.2d 1100
N.H. 1979
In State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832, 395 A.2d 858 (1978), the defendant excepted at trial to the reasonable doubt charge.
-
State v. Dupuy
395 A.2d 851
N.H. 1978
As in State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832, 395 A.2d 858 (1978), the defendant argues that the trial court failed to charge the jury correctly on the requirement that defendant knew she was not licensed or privileged to remain on the property as required by RSA 635:2.