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. Boire, 474 A.2d 568.

14 citing documents.

  • State v. French 776 A.2d 1253 N.H. 2001
    The defendant relies on State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622 (1984).
  • State v. Dixon 741 A.2d 580 N.H. 1999
    The defendant argues that under State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 474 A.2d 568 (1984), he was entitled to information of the exact date of each offense so long as there was a possibility of asserting a time-based defense.
  • State v. Seymour 707 A.2d 130 N.H. 1998
    First, if the State furnishes a bill.of particulars that identifies a specific date or time frame for the charged offense, then it must prove the *623 temporal detail beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Desmarais 665 A.2d 348 N.H. 1995
    The defendant argues that State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 474 A.2d 568 (1984), mandates a reversal of his convictions.
  • State v. Voorhees 632 A.2d 825 N.H. 1993
    Acknowledging that the State may not be required to furnish a bill of particulars unless necessary for the preparation of a defense, State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 624, 474 A.2d 568, 569 (1984), Voorhees contends that a particular date and time was essential because his alibi would be defeated if the State chose to amend the date stated in the indictment.
  • State v. Patch 599 A.2d 1243 N.H. 1991
    Although the exact date of the charged offense is not an element of the crime, see State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 624, 474 A.2d 568, 569 (1984), the indictment must be specific enough to ensure notice to the defendant, assurance against double jeopardy, and the reliability of an unanimous jury verdict.
  • State v. Allison 595 A.2d 1089 N.H. 1991
  • State v. Johnson 547 A.2d 213 N.H. 1988
    er the State has met its burden on this issue is ‘whether on all the evidence, and all reasonable inferences from it, considered in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the [defendant coerced the victim on September 13, 1985].’” State v. Meekins, 127 N.H. 777, 778, 508 A.2d 1048, 1049 (1986) (quoting State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 625, 474 A.2d 568, 570 (1984)); accord, State v. LaCasse, supra at 653, 531 A.2d at 328
  • State v. Stearns 547 A.2d 672 N.H. 1988
    State v. Meekins, 127 N.H. 777, 778, 508 A.2d 1048, 1049 (1986) (citing State v. Spade, 118 N.H. 186, 189, 385 A.2d 115, 116 (1978)); see State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 474 A.2d 568 (1984).
  • State v. LaCasse 531 A.2d 327 N.H. 1987
    However, when a particular date is furnished by the State in a bill of particulars, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred on that date.
  • State v. Cote 530 A.2d 775 N.H. 1987
    As we have already noted, the specific date is not an element of the offense of sexual assault.
  • State v. Lakin 517 A.2d 846 N.H. 1986
    The aggravated felonious sexual assault statute does not require proof of the exact date of the assault as an element.
  • State v. Steer 517 A.2d 797 N.H. 1986
    In State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 624, 474 A.2d 568, 569 (1984), we stated that “the State may not be required over objection to furnish a bill of particulars.
  • State v. Meekins 508 A.2d 1048 N.H. 1986
    A bill of particulars limits proof to what it specifies, and requires proof of what it specifies.” State v. Boire, 124 N.H. 622, 624, 474 A.2d 568, 569-70 (1984).