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. Miskolczi, 465 A.2d 919.

15 citing documents.

  • State v. Dukette 506 A.2d 699 N.H. 1986
    Cir. 1971) (evidence lost); United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1978) (evidence destroyed); State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 465 A.2d 919 (1983) (federal law applied where evidence destroyed).
  • State v. Oxley 503 A.2d 756 N.H. 1985
    Therefore, we need only address the federal constitutional issues in this assignment of error.
  • State v. Brooks 495 A.2d 1258 N.H. 1985
    When evidence has been destroyed by the State, we apply the test set out in State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 629, 465 A.2d 919, 921 (1983) to determine admissibility.
  • State v. Dumais 493 A.2d 501 N.H. 1985
    Therefore, we need only address the federal constitutional issues.
  • State v. Brodeur 493 A.2d 1134 N.H. 1985
    State v. Ball, 124 N.H. at 231, 471 A.2d at 350; State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983).
  • State v. Gibbs 492 A.2d 1367 N.H. 1985
    ‘A three-pronged examination is in order: first, was the evidence material to the question of guilt or the degree of punishment; second, was the defendant prejudiced by its destruction; and third, was the government acting in good faith when it destroyed the evidence.’ ” State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 629, 465 A.2d 919, 921 (1983) (quoting United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 227 (1st Cir. 1978)).
  • State v. Shannon 484 A.2d 1164 N.H. 1984
    State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983); compare State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983) (when defendant raises State constitutional claims we will address those claims).
  • State v. Wong 486 A.2d 262 N.H. 1984
    The defendant failed to assert any State constitutional claim.
  • State v. Woodman 480 A.2d 169 N.H. 1984
    In Berry we also recognized that a “three prong test is employed when the authorities destroy evidence: (1) materiality of evidence, (2) prejudice to the defendant, and (3) good faith of the authorities.” Id.
  • State v. Portigue 480 A.2d 896 N.H. 1984
    The defendant makes her arguments with reference to the Federal Constitution alone.
  • State v. Portigue 481 A.2d 534 N.H. 1984
    The defendant’s single cite to the New Hampshire Constitution in his motion to suppress was made without reference to a particular part, article or provision thereunder.
  • State v. Reynolds 471 A.2d 1172 N.H. 1984
    State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983) (where we reviewed the defendant’s allegations of police misconduct by reference to the Federal Constitution alone due to his failure properly to raise the issues under the State Constitution).
  • State v. Berthiaume 470 A.2d 893 N.H. 1983
    State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 350 (1983); compare State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 628, 465 A.2d 919, 920 (1983).
  • State v. Ball 471 A.2d 347 N.H. 1983
    Compare State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 465 A.2d 919 (1983) (court decided defendant’s rights under the Federal Constitution rather than the State Constitution due to his failure to present, argue, or brief any legal issues involving the State constitutional provision).
  • State v. Berry 470 A.2d 881 N.H. 1983
    rt has not held that, absent actual suppression, the non-preservation or destruction of evidence by the State is a violation of due process, see United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356 (1969); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 310, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977), this court has recognized that the right to due process is implicated when evidence in a criminal trial is destroyed, State v. Miskolczi, 123 N.H. 626, 629, 465 A.2d 919, 921 (1983) (citing United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 227 (1