Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Fecteau, 587 A.2d 591.
-
State v. Perri
164 N.H. 400
N.H. 2012
State v. Bell-Rogers, 159 N.H. 178, 181 (2009); State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 867 (1991).
-
State v. Nightingale
8 A.3d 136
N.H. 2010
State v. Goodman, 145 N.H. 526, 529-30 (2000); State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 874 (1991).
-
Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Companies
866 A.2d 962
N.H. 2005
By means of this mechanism, a misleading advantage may be countered with previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence.
-
State v. Tierney
839 A.2d 38
N.H. 2003
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to sever after reviewing the factors identified in State v. Cote, 129 N.H. 358, 367-68 (1987), and State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 869 (1991).
-
State v. Ramos
818 A.2d 1228
N.H. 2003
Traditionally, we have liberally permitted joinder of criminal offenses for trial, asking only “whether the evidence in support of each offense was brief, simple and unlikely to confuse a jury, and easily referable to each crime.” State v. Cote, 129 N.H. 358, 367 (1987); see State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 869 (1991).
-
State v. Goodman
764 A.2d 925
N.H. 2000
The trial court realized that its pretrial ruling on the motion in limine “left the State with no way of rebutting these allegations;” State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 874; 587 A.2d 591, 599 (1991).
-
State v. Graf
726 A.2d 1270
N.H. 1999
State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 873, 587 A.2d 591, 598 (1991) (addressing defendant’s due process argument as evidentiary argument only where defendant failed to specifically raise issue as constitutional matter to trial court).
-
State v. Smith
681 A.2d 1215
N.H. 1996
As in Vandebogart, “the nature, quantity, and weight of [this evidence] can only be described as overwhelming.” Vandebogart, *280 139 N.H. at 158, 652 A.2d at 679; see also State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 869, 587 A.2d 591, 595-96 (1991); State v. Green, 133 N.H. 249, 260, 575 A.2d 1308, 1315 (1990).
-
State v. Fecteau
667 A.2d 1384
N.H. 1995
In State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 587 A.2d 591 (1991), we concluded that the identification procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive, id.
-
State v. Bassett
659 A.2d 891
N.H. 1995
State v. Poirier, 136 N.H. 477, 617 A.2d 653 (1992) (affirming court’s decision, based on changed circumstances at trial, to reverse pretrial decision to exclude evidence of defendant’s prior assault); State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 873-74, 587 A.2d 591, 599 (1991) (affirming trial court’s ruling allowing the State to introduce previously excluded evidence of the defendant’s arrest to explain references in defense’s opening statement).
-
State v. Hastings
631 A.2d 526
N.H. 1993
see State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 872-73, 587 A.2d 591, 599 (1991) (once defendant opened the door, evidence of defendant’s subsequent burglary arrest admitted at sexual assault trial).
-
State v. Stow
620 A.2d 1023
N.H. 1993
State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 875-76, 587 A.2d 591, 600 (1991); State v. Campbell, supra at 117, 498 A.2d at 334.
-
State v. Philbrick
610 A.2d 353
N.H. 1992
To sustain his claim, the defendant must first demonstrate that the identification procedures used were “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification....” State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 867, 587 A.2d 591, 594 (1991) (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Rezk
609 A.2d 391
N.H. 1992
We will not overturn the trial court’s finding on a motion to suppress unless it is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
-
State v. Bergmann
599 A.2d 502
N.H. 1991
State v. Giordano, 134 N.H. 718, 722, 599 A.2d 109, 111 (1991) (citing State v. Fecteau, 133 N.H. 860, 869, 587 A.2d 591, 596 (1991)).
-
State v. Giordano
599 A.2d 109
N.H. 1991
This court will not disturb a consolidation ruling on appeal unless the defendant can establish an abuse of discretion.