Cited by

The defendant must have control over the weapon, meaning that he “either owns that [weapon], he’s leased that [weapon], he has borrowed that [weapon], or somehow gotten control over that [weapon], and that the defendant has the ability to exercise control over the [weapon] in a sense that he can determine who may have the ultimate use of that [weapon].” State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450 (1986) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The defendant claims that the omission of this language was error.

The defendant requested that the court add the following: “When we say that the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant has the ability to exercise control over the firearm, we mean that in the sense that he can determine who may have the ultimate use of the firearm.” The defendant claims that the omission of this language was error.

Overbreadth “A statute is void for overbreadth if it attempts to control conduct by means which invade areas of protected freedom.” State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450-51 (1986) (quotation and citations omitted).

State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 451 (1986) (overbreadth doctrine applicable primarily in First Amendment cases); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (to succeed in facial challenge, plaintiff “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [legislation] would be valid...

State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450 (1986) (finding the defendant was in control of weapons in an apartment in which he lived part-time with his girlfriend).

The vagueness doctrine rests upon the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and applies solely to legislation which is lacking in clarity and precision.

Alternatively, the defendants argue that we should carve out an exception to the crime of obstructing government administration for instances in which the defendant “has a good faith belief that the public servant has committed or is committing a crime.” “A statute is void for overbreadth if it attempts to control conduct by means which invade areas of protected freedom.” State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450-51 (1986) (quotation and brackets omitted).

to curb [or] restrain.” State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 449 (1986) (quotations omitted).

The standard employed by this court and the United States Supreme Court in gauging whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague is “whether men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [its] meaning and differ as to its application.” State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 449, 514 A.2d 1279, 1280 (1986); see State v. Parker, 109 N.H. 491, 492, 256 A.2d 159, 160 (1969).

protected freedoms.” State v. Albers, 113 N.H. 132, 134, 303 A.2d 197, 199 (1973) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450-51, 514 A.2d 1279, 1281 (1986).

The jury was instructed that “[a] person cannot be convicted of this crime when he happens to walk or be in an apartment or house where weapons exist.” We previously addressed this issue in State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 450, 514 A.2d 1279, 1281 (1986), where we stated that “[the defendant’s] control over the weapons is not based upon their location at any particular place, or upon his relationship with any individual.

State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 449-50, 514 A.2d 1279, 1280-81 (1986) (describing doctrine of “constructive possession”).

Although the defendant made reference to overbreadth and vagueness, see State v. Pike, 128 N.H. 447, 514 A.2d 1279 (1986) (where RSA 159:3 (Supp. 1985) was found to be neither overbroad nor vague), he failed to specify which constitutional provisions were allegedly being violated, and he neglected to state whether his claims were founded upon State or federal grounds.