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. Hamel, 466 A.2d 555.

13 citing documents.

  • State v. Kelley 899 A.2d 236 N.H. 2006
    RSA 626:4 (1996); RSA 172-B:4; State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 678 (1983) (“It was the province of the jury to determine whether intoxication negated deliberation and premeditation.”).
  • State v. Turmel 838 A.2d 1279 N.H. 2003
    During an investigatory stop, a reasonable person may not feel free to leave, because, in fact, he is not free to leave.
  • State v. D'Amelio 808 A.2d 91 N.H. 2002
    State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670 (1983); see also State v. Newcomb, 140 N.H. 72 (1995); State v. Farrow, 118 N.H. 296 (1978).
  • State v. Sylvia 616 A.2d 507 N.H. 1992
    State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 679, 466 A.2d 555, 560 (1983); State v. Noel, 119 N.H. 522, 528, 404 A.2d 290, 293 (1979); State v. Goodwin, 118 N.H. 862, 867, 395 A.2d 1234, 1237 (1978); State v. Caldrain, 115 N.H. 390, 391-92, 342 A.2d 628, 629 (1975); State v. Warren, 114 N.H. 196, 197, 317 A.2d 566, 567 (1974).
  • State v. Herrick 582 A.2d 613 N.H. 1990
    State v. Sullivan, 131 N.H. 209, 217, 551 A.2d 519, 525 (1988) (firing gun from position maximizing likelihood bullet would strike vital organ indicates premeditation and deliberation); State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 679, 466 A.2d 555, 560 (1983) (shooting victim in brain significant to show premeditation and deliberation).
  • State v. Walters 519 A.2d 305 N.H. 1986
    State v. Brooks, 126 N.H. at 625, 495 A.2d at 1263; State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 677, 466 A.2d 555, 559 (1983).
  • State v. Lurvey 508 A.2d 1074 N.H. 1986
    This court has long held that a trial judge has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence.
  • State v. Place 495 A.2d 1253 N.H. 1985
    “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Sadvari, 123 N.H. 410, 413, 462 A.2d 102, 103-04 (1983); State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 678, 466 A.2d 555, 559 (1983).
  • State v. Brooks 495 A.2d 1258 N.H. 1985
    State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 677, 466 A.2d 555, 559 (1983) (citing State v. Fernald, 123 N.H. 442, 444, 462 A.2d 122, 124 (1983)).
  • State v. Brodeur 493 A.2d 1134 N.H. 1985
    State v. Riley, 126 N.H. 257, 262, 490 A.2d 1362, 1366 (1985); State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 676, 466 A.2d 555, 558 (1983); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 502 (1983); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
  • State v. Riley 490 A.2d 1362 N.H. 1985
    State v. Preston, 124 N.H. 118, 120, 467 A.2d 243, 245 (1983); State v. Hamel, 123 N.H. 670, 675, 466 A.2d 555, 558 (1983); State v. Lemire, 121 N.H. 1, 4, 424 A.2d 1135, 1137 (1981).
  • State v. Wong 486 A.2d 262 N.H. 1984
    When circumstantial evidence is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, as here, it is the province of the jury to decide whether the evidence as a whole supports the material elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Plaut 474 A.2d 587 N.H. 1984
    All evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State.