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 Martineau v. Perrin, 404 A.2d 1100.

21 citing documents.

  • 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. Addison 8 A.3d 118 N.H. 2010
    Although the First Circuit interprets the Biggers test to offer the defendant greater protection under the Federal Constitution than our *803 State Constitution, First Circuit decisions are not binding upon this court even on questions of federal law.
  • State v. Remick 829 A.2d 1079 N.H. 2003
    While this assertion may be true in theory, see Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531 (1979), we will follow the First Circuit’s precedent in analyzing this case.
  • Avery v. Cunningham 551 A.2d 952 N.H. 1988
    Similarly, in Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531-32, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979), no objections or exceptions were taken to a jury instruction, and this court found that the issue was not preserved for appellate review in a habeas corpus proceeding.
  • State v. Avery 490 A.2d 1350 N.H. 1985
    A later *211 habeas corpus petition, challenging part of the trial court’s jury instruction, was rejected by this court in Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979).
  • 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. Beaudette 474 A.2d 1012 N.H. 1984
    Roy v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 88, 100, 441 A.2d 1151, 1159 (1982); see Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979); see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 88-89 (1977).
  • State v. Fournier 465 A.2d 898 N.H. 1983
    State v. Thaxton, 122 N.H. 1148, 1152, 455 A.2d 1016, 1018 (1982); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 532, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979) (citing State v. Isabelle, 80 N.H. 191, 193, 115 A.2d 806, 808 (1921)).
  • Rodrigue v. LaFlamme 453 A.2d 1254 N.H. 1982
    Proulx v. City of Dover, 120 N.H. 674, 421 A.2d 133 (1980), Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979), and Garland & LaChance Const. Co. v. City of Keene, 117 N.H. 920, 379 A.2d 1259 (1977), are consistent with this rule.
  • State v. Niquette 451 A.2d 1292 N.H. 1982
    Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531-32, 404 A.2d 1100, 1101-02 (1979); see State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 82, 427 A.2d 1, 2 (1981).
  • Roy v. Perrin 441 A.2d 1151 N.H. 1982
    Further, this State’s contemporaneous objection rule requires that objections and exceptions be taken at the appropriate time.
  • State v. Fecteau 437 A.2d 294 N.H. 1981
    State v. Sullivan, 121 N.H. 301, 304, 428 A.2d 1247, 1249-50 (1981); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979).
  • State v. Sullivan 428 A.2d 1247 N.H. 1981
    State v. Jones, 120 N.H. 652, 653, 421 A.2d 1004, 1005 (1980); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531-32, 404 A.2d 1100, 1101-02 (1979).
  • State v. Preston 427 A.2d 32 N.H. 1981
    Under these circumstances, the defendant has waived his right to challenge the court’s ruling.
  • State v. Cass 427 A.2d 1 N.H. 1981
    “It would be unjust to allow a party to lie by and take the chance of a verdict in his favor, and, if defeated, avail himself of an exception which might have been obviated if seasonably known.” Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 532, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979) (per curiam), quoting State v. Isabelle, 80 N.H. 191, 193, 115 A. 806, 808 (1921).
  • In Re Irene W. 427 A.2d 24 N.H. 1981
    Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 274-75 n.4 (1979); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 532, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979).
  • Mires v. Sylvester 421 A.2d 1014 N.H. 1980
    State v. Jones, 120 N.H. 652, 421 A.2d 1004 (1980); State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 417 A.2d 8 (1980); Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979).
  • State v. Jones 421 A.2d 1004 N.H. 1980
    Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979); State v. Gullick, 120 N.H. 99, 411 A.2d 1113 (1980); State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 417 A.2d 8 (1980).
  • State v. Donovan 419 A.2d 1102 N.H. 1980
    This State’s contemporaneous objection and exception rule is firmly grounded in statutory authority, RSA 490:10, 491:17, and it has been consistently and routinely applied “especially with regard to jury instructions.” Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531, 404 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1979).
  • State v. Houle 412 A.2d 736 N.H. 1980
    Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979); State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979).
  • State v. Josselin 409 A.2d 1336 N.H. 1979
    We recently reminded the bar in Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979), that our procedural requirement of a contemporaneous objection and exception is “grounded on judicial economy and common sense.” Id.