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. Fraser, 411 A.2d 1125.

14 citing documents.

  • State of New Hampshire v. Kyle C. Buffum N.H. 2017
    State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 122-23 (1980) (“Encouraging guilty pleas by providing the opportunity for lesser punishment is not unconstitutional, but is an important part of plea negotiations.
  • State v. Addison 165 N.H. 381 N.H. 2013
    State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 122 (1980) (not all persons convicted of a particular crime must receive the same sentence — even if crimes were identical, defendants may not be).
  • State v. McMinn 690 A.2d 1017 N.H. 1997
    The “jury is entitled to believe any witness,” State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 122, 411 A.2d 1125, 1128 (1980) (emphasis added); the ancient maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, does not authorize a conclusion that testimony is incredible as a matter of law.
  • State v. Marcano 645 A.2d 661 N.H. 1994
    An important part of plea negotiations is to encourage guilty pleas by extending leniency in return.
  • State v. Fletcher 607 A.2d 958 N.H. 1992
    “It is elementary that the defendant cannot take advantage of delay that he has occasioned.” State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 120, 411 A.2d 1125, 1127 (1980); see also Adams, supra at 823, 585 A.2d at 855.
  • State v. Barham 495 A.2d 1269 N.H. 1985
    The defendant contends, however, that this delay should not be attributed to him because he did not sign the continuance motion even though Superior Court Rule 49 requires that such a motion be signed by “counsel and his client.” This is unpersuasive since a defendant temporarily waives his right to a speedy trial by requesting a continuance.
  • State v. Monahan 480 A.2d 863 N.H. 1984
    The defendant cannot take advantage of any delay that he has occasioned.
  • LaVallee v. Perrin 466 A.2d 932 N.H. 1983
  • State v. Little 462 A.2d 117 N.H. 1983
    State v. Darcy, 121 N.H. 220, 225-26, 427 A.2d 516, 519-20 (1981); State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 123, 411 A.2d 1125, 1129 (1980).
  • State v. Thresher 442 A.2d 578 N.H. 1982
    In State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 411 A.2d 1125 (1980), this court stated that “[t]he testimony of an admitted accomplice, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a verdict.” Id.
  • State v. Little 435 A.2d 517 N.H. 1981
    Of these four factors, we place particular emphasis on the latter two.
  • State v. Hastings 417 A.2d 7 N.H. 1980
    State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 411 A.2d 1125 (1980); State v. Hudson, 119 N.H. 963, 409 A.2d 1349 (1979).
  • In Re Russell C. 414 A.2d 934 N.H. 1980
    We hold that the time limits prescribed in RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp. 1979) and RSA 169-D:13 II (Supp. 1979) effectuate a substantive right requiring the court to forfeit jurisdiction if not complied with, unless such noncompliance is the result of a delay caused or requested by the juvenile, in which case he will be deemed to have waived the time limits.
  • State v. Novosel 412 A.2d 739 N.H. 1980
    State v. Hudson, 119 N.H. 963, 409 A.2d 1349 (1979); State v. Isaac, 119 N.H. 971, 409 A.2d 1354 (1979); Barker v. Wingo supra; State v. White supra; see State v. Fraser, 120 N.H. 117, 411 A.2d 1125 (1980).