Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Dupuy, 395 A.2d 851.
-
State of New Hampshire v. Maurice Belmore
N.H. 2016
Compare State v. Ruff, 155 N.H. 536, 538 (2007) (assuming without deciding that an authorized person under RSA 635:2, III(b) is one with actual authority), and State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 852 (1978) (determining that person who authorized police officer to order protesters to leave had actual authority to do so), with State v. Gaffney, 147 N.H. 550, 555 (2002) (finding that repeated orders by individuals in actual or apparent authority were sufficient to support a conviction under RSA 635:2, I
-
State v. Gaffney
795 A.2d 243
N.H. 2002
In State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848 (1978), we considered whether a person, once invited onto a premises, can still be found guilty of criminal trespass.
-
State v. Fennell
578 A.2d 329
N.H. 1990
*409 A motion to dismiss this indictment would have been properly granted, since the evidence, viewed even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 850, 395 A.2d 851, 852 (1978), failed to show that the defendant digitally penetrated the victim.
-
State v. Brown
565 A.2d 1035
N.H. 1989
State v. Casey, 113 N.H. 19, 19, 300 A.2d 325, 326 (1976); State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 850, 395 A.2d 851, 852 (1978).
-
State v. Smith
503 A.2d 774
N.H. 1985
State v. Burke, 122 N.H. 565, 569, 448 A.2d 962, 964 (1982) (citing State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 850, 395 A.2d 851, 852 (1978)).
-
State v. Elbert
480 A.2d 854
N.H. 1984
State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); see State v. Reardon, 121 N.H. 604, 431 A.2d 796 (1981).
-
State v. Hopps
465 A.2d 1206
N.H. 1983
State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 71, 442 A.2d 578, 582 (1982); State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 853, 395 A.2d 851, 854 (1978).
-
State v. Burke
448 A.2d 962
N.H. 1982
State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 850, 395 A.2d 851, 852 (1978); see 2 R. McNamara, New Hampshire Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 798, at 14 (1980).
-
State v. Thresher
442 A.2d 578
N.H. 1982
State v. Hardy, 120 N.H. 552, 554, 419 A.2d 398, 400 (1980); State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 853, 395 A.2d 851, 854 (1978).
-
State v. Weitzman
427 A.2d 3
N.H. 1981
State v. Dorsey, 118 N.H. 844, 845-46, 395 A.2d 855, 857 (1978); State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 854, 395 A.2d 851, 855 (1978).
-
State v. Fraser
411 A.2d 1125
N.H. 1980
State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 397 A.2d 1041 (1979);State v.Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978).
-
State v. Boone
406 A.2d 113
N.H. 1979
State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 850, 395 A.2d 851, 852 (1978); State v. Breest, 116 N.H. *597 734, 741, 367 A.2d 1320, 1326 (1976).
-
State v. MacLeod
402 A.2d 1338
N.H. 1979
State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976).
-
State v. Osborne
402 A.2d 493
N.H. 1979
The evidence presented, together with all reasonable inferences in the State’s favor, was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion.
-
State v. Meloon
397 A.2d 1041
N.H. 1979
“State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).
-
State v. Schulte
398 A.2d 63
N.H. 1979
State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 741, 367 A.2d 1320, 1326 (1976).
-
State v. Murchaison
395 A.2d 1250
N.H. 1978
In passing on the sufficiency of the evidence, we must construe the evidence most favorably to the State.
-
State v. Wentworth
395 A.2d 858
N.H. 1978
Although a different explanation would be preferable, we hold that, considering the charge as a whole, it 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.” Davis v. State, 94 N.H. 321, 323, 52 A.2d 793, 794 (1947); State v. Skaff, 94 N.H. 402, 409, 54 A.2d 155, 161 (1947); State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978).