Cited by

Moreover, the identity of the purchaser of a drug is not an element of the crime of sale of a controlled drug under RSA 318-B:2.

The defendant also cites State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432 (1984), for the proposition that “where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.” There is no conflict, however, between a provision stat

Amendments that purport to change an element of the offense are invalid, State v. Prevost, 141 N.H. 559, 560 (1997); State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 429 (1984), while amendments that involve merely the form of the indictment are freely allowed and may be made without the need to return to the grand jury, see RSA 601:8 (2001); State v. Spade, 118 N.H. 186, 188 (1978).

It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.

“It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.” State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432 (1984).

The State argues that this is merely a general provision, and points to the rule that “where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.” State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432 (1984).

The elements of the charged offense are “automatically considered part of the substance of an indictment,” id., and therefore cannot be altered except as directed by the grand jury.

State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432, 480 A.2d 906, 911 (1984) (specific, more detailed statute viewed as exception to general statute where two conflict).

The same result is reached based upon the rule of statutory construction which provides that “where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.” State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432, 480 A.2d 906, 911 (1984).

The defendant relies primarily on State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 480 A.2d 906 (1984), in which we stated: It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two co

That it was not lawful.” While there is ample support in our case law for the proposition that the defendant need not prove the applicability of a statu *468 tory exception (the burden being upon the State to prove that an exception does not apply), State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 431, 480 A.2d 906, 911 (1984); RSA 625:10,:11, the instruction here falls short of infecting the charge with error because, viewing the charge as a whole, including the supplementary written instruction, the trial court a

add[s] an offense.” State v. Spade, supra at 189, 385 A.2d at 116 (citation omitted); Erickson, supra at 519, 533 A.2d at 25 (citing State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 429, 480 A.2d 906, 909 (1984)) (“[a]n element of an offense is considered part of the substance of an indictment”).

It is true that an element of the offense is automatically considered part of the substance of an indictment.

it was not undue prejudice.” State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 430, 480 A.2d 906, 910 (1984).

Hence, the defendant would ordinarily be barred from raising this issue on appeal.

They invoke the rule that “where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.” State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425, 432, 480 A.2d 906, 911 (1984).