Cited by

State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 391 (1983) (holding that the defendant’s transactions in Maine were admissible to prove that he received stolen property in New Hampshire because they constituted “evidence of a common scheme or plan”).

While that right includes a requirement that the indictment clearly state the conduct which the grand jury found violated the Criminal Code, it does not require that all of the evidentiary details that the State intends to present at trial be included in the indictment.

In State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378 (1983), we stated that, due to the probability of unfairness, a per se rule of disqualification applies when a judge “has pecuniary interests in the outcome,...

The party claiming bias “must show the existence of bias, or such likelihood of bias, or an appearance of bias that the judge is unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of [a party].” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 384 (1983) (quotation omitted).

Id.; cf. State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388 (1983) (such allegations, even if not matters of substance, may be protected from amendment if defendant would be prejudiced thereby).

The party claiming bias “must show the existence of bias, or such likelihood of bias, or an appearance of bias that the judge is unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of [a party].” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 384 (1983) (quotation omitted).

While the defendant has a constitutional right to have the indictment clearly state the conduct which the grand jury found to be in violation of the Criminal Code, State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 386, 461 A.2d 1090, 1094 (1983), he does not have a constitutional right to have all of the evidentiary details that the State intends to present at trial included in the indictment.

If none of the factors justifying per se recusal exist, then a trier may be disqualified if the party presents “facts from which a sane and reasonable mind might fairly infer personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge.” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 384, 461 A.2d 1090, 1092 (1983) (quotation omitted).

State v. Elliott, 133 N.H. 759, 765, 585 A.2d, 304, 307 (1990); State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 586, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988); State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388, 461 A.2d 1090, 1095 (1983).

The defendant, however, does not contend that this ruling prejudiced him either in his ability to understand the charges or to *401 prepare his defense, see State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388, 461 A.2d 1090, 1095 (1983), and our review of the extensive record in this case does not indicate that any prejudice in fact occurred.

Part I, article 35 of the State Constitution provides in pertinent part that “[i]t is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.” In State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 461 A.2d 1090 (1983), we explained that “[a] per se rule of disqualification due to the probability of unfairness applies when the trier [of fact] has pecuniary in *121 terests in the outcome, when the trier [of fact] has become personally embroiled in criticism from a party befo

Rather, the test for determining whether changing such an allegation causes an impermissible amendment of the indictment is whether the change prejudices the defendant “either in his ability to understand properly the charges against him or in his ability to prepare his defense.” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388, 461 *765 A.2d 1090, 1095 (1983); see also Erickson, 129 N.H. at 519, 533 A.2d at 25.

State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 387-88, 461 A.2d 1090, 1094-95 (1985) (common law practice superseded by statutory criminal pleading, under which amendments not essential to allegation of element of offense are allowed to conform pleading to proof, where not otherwise prejudicial to defendant).

In State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 461 A.2d 1090 (1983), the indictments in question inaccurately identified the owners of stolen property.

The question we must ask in this case is whether the jury instruction constituted an amendment of the indictment that was prejudicial to the defendant “either in [her] ability to understand properly the charges against [her] or in [her] ability to prepare [her] defense.” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388, 461 A.2d 1090, 1095 (1983).

Nor could he be put again in jeopardy for the same offenses, as he would be entitled to rely on the trial record as well as on the indictments in any subsequent attempt to prosecute him.

Sands supra; see also State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 390, 461 A.2d 1090, 1097 (1983); State v. Taylor, 121 N.H. 489, 495-96, 431 A.2d 775, 779 (1981).

State v. Colby, 116 N.H. 790, 795, 368 A.2d 587, 591 (1976); State v. Sands, 123 N.H. 570, 615, 467 A.2d 202, 231 (1983); State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 390, 461 A.2d 1090, 1097 (1983).

Consequently, we hold that the RSA 637:2, III variants are not elements that must necessarily be alleged in theft indictments requiring proof of intent to deprive.

The identity of the purchaser, like the identity of the person from whom stolen goods are received in violation of RSA 637:7, is not a material element of the offense.

However, the State need not plead every fact underlying the offense; rather, the indictment need contain only “enough facts to warn the accused of the specific charges against him.” State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 386, 461 A.2d 1090, 1094 (1983) (quoting State v. Manchester News Co., 118 N.H. 255, 257, 387 A.2d 324, 327, appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 949 (1978)).

The defendant herein, however, mischaracterizes his theory of the case as a theory of defense.

State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 390, 461 A.2d 1091, 1097 (1983); State v. Taylor, 121 N.H. 489, 495-96, 431 A.2d 775, 779 (1981).