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 State v. LeClair, 385 A.2d 831.

24 citing documents.

  • State of New Hampshire v. Christopher T. Dastrup N.H. 2020
    State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 219 (1978); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891 (1977).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Richard Scott 167 N.H. 634 N.H. 2015
    State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 218 (1978) (explaining that the out-of-court identification was based on a single photograph and amounted to a one-man show-up).
  • State v. Whittey 591 A.2d 1326 N.H. 1991
    State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 220, 385 A.2d 831, 834 (1978) (implying that the fact that the witness was “scared” and acted “like he was in shock” at the time of the robbery would have lessened the degree of attention he paid to the features of the suspect).
  • State v. Allen 577 A.2d 801 N.H. 1990
    State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 216-17, 385 A.2d 831, 832 (1978); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 890, 379 A.2d 827, 829 (1977).
  • State v. Manna 539 A.2d 284 N.H. 1988
    The use of a single photograph would be highly suggestive in a case where the police were working with a victim or potential untrained lay witness to obtain an identification.
  • State v. MacDonald 533 A.2d 26 N.H. 1987
    il v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (where admissibility of out-of-court identification is challenged on grounds of undue police suggestiveness, government’s burden of proof not specified), with United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 239-40 (1966) (following sixth amendment line-up violation, reliability of in-court identification must be shown by clear and convincing evidence) and State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 219, 385 A.2d 831, 834 (1979) (following undue police suggestiveness, out-of-court ide
  • State v. Howe 523 A.2d 94 N.H. 1987
    State v. Toussaint, 464 A.2d 177, 180 (Me. 1983) (officer’s statement that witness had chosen the “right” man after photo line-up rendered procedure suggestive); State v. Leclair, *124 118 N.H. 214, 219, 385 A.2d 831, 833 (1978).
  • State v. Winders 503 A.2d 798 N.H. 1985
    .’” State v. Preston, 122 N.H. 153, 157-58, 442 A.2d 992, 994 (1982) (quoting State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978)).
  • State v. LaRose 497 A.2d 1224 N.H. 1985
    Goodwin, 118 N.H. at 869, 395 A.2d at 1238; see also State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978).
  • State v. Stoehrer 465 A.2d 905 N.H. 1983
    The trial court ruled that evidence of the in-person identifications of the defendant made while he was in the jail were inadmissible at trial, because his right to counsel had been violated.
  • Heald v. Perrin 464 A.2d 275 N.H. 1983
    State v. *475 Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978) (defendant could not be sentenced for commission of crime while armed with a gun without being indicted for that offense).
  • State v. Philibotte 459 A.2d 275 N.H. 1983
    State v. Preston, 122 N.H. 153, 157-58, 442 A.2d 992, 994-95 (1982); State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978); see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967).
  • State v. Allard 459 A.2d 259 N.H. 1983
    State v. Preston, 122 N.H. 153, 157-58, 442 A.2d 991, 994 (1982); State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 220-21, 385 A.2d 831, 834-35 (1978).
  • State v. Cyr 453 A.2d 1315 N.H. 1982
    State v. Perron, 122 N.H. 941, 947, 454 A.2d 422, 425 (1982); State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 219, 385 A.2d 831, 834 (1978).
  • State v. Perron 454 A.2d 422 N.H. 1982
    In State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 385 A.2d 831 (1978), we announced the following standard governing the admissibility of a pre-indictment photographic identification: “When an out-of-court identification is made before formal charges, and thus before the right to counsel *948 attaches, its reliability and therefore its admissibility will be determi
  • State v. Dumont 451 A.2d 1286 N.H. 1982
    Thus, New Hampshire judges have generally dealt more severely with offenses involving firearms.
  • State v. Preston 442 A.2d 992 N.H. 1982
    Once an out-of-court identification has been suppressed, in order for a subsequent in-court identification to be allowed, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that “the in-court identification ha[d] an independent source and [was] not *158 influenced by the out-of-court viewing State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978); Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d 1179, 1188 (2d Cir. 1981); see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967).
  • State v. Gonzales 423 A.2d 608 N.H. 1980
    Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 (1977); State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 218-19, 385 A.2d 831, 833 (1978).
  • State v. Heald 414 A.2d 1288 N.H. 1980
    State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 385 A.2d 831 (1978); see Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
  • State v. Fraser 411 A.2d 1125 N.H. 1980
    It was not inconsistent with sentences traditionally meted out by our trial judges in cases involving the use of firearms.
  • State v. Gullick 411 A.2d 1113 N.H. 1980
    An attorney who then represented the defendant, although no charges were pending, not only was present at the lineup, but provided input as to the clothing worn and the placement of the seven persons viewed by the two victims.
  • State v. Goodwin 395 A.2d 1234 N.H. 1978
    State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 221, 385 A.2d 831, 835 (1978); State v. Ferris, 249 A.2d 523 (Me. 1969); Carey v. State, 91 Idaho 706, 429 P.2d 836, 840 (1967).
  • Angwin v. City of Manchester 386 A.2d 1272 N.H. 1978
    State v. Hogg, 118 N.H. 262, 385 A.2d 844 (1978); see State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 385 A.2d 831 (1978).
  • State v. Hogg 385 A.2d 844 N.H. 1978
    State v. Leclair, 118 N.H. 214, 385 A.2d 831 (1978); State v. Phinney, 117 N.H. 145, 370 A.2d 1153 (1977).