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. Hungerford, 697 A.2d 916.

15 citing documents.

  • Petition of State of New Hampshire (State v. Schefer) N.H. 2019
    State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 119 (1997) (explaining that when challenged, “testimony that relies on memories which previously have been partially or fully repressed must satisfy a pretrial reliability determination” which may require the trial court to hold a pretrial hearing on admissibility).
  • Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Gibson 999 A.2d 240 N.H. 2010
    All but eight counts were dismissed prior to trial *447 after the Trial Court (Perkins, J.) concluded that the victims’ recovered memories were unreliable and therefore inadmissible as evidence at trial.
  • State v. Gibson 897 A.2d 957 N.H. 2006
    Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing that the victims’ testimony in support of the charges was based upon recovered memories that were unreliable under State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 125-26 (1997).
  • State v. Madore 834 A.2d 389 N.H. 2003
    The defendant argues that the victim’s answer on cross-examination- — “That was a memory that came after counseling”— constituted testimony based upon repressed memory which, pursuant to State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 119 (1997), was admissible only following a pretrial reliability hearing.
  • State v. Whittey 821 A.2d 1086 N.H. 2003
    State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 117 (1997); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • State v. Dahood 814 A.2d 159 N.H. 2002
    State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 117 (1997); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
  • Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. 813 A.2d 409 N.H. 2002
    Accordingly, in State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 (1997), we declined to use the Frye test.
  • State v. Sargent 813 A.2d 402 N.H. 2002
    See, e.g., State v. DeCosta, 146 N.H. 405, 408-09 (2001); State v. Searles, 141 N.H. 224, 228-29 (1996); State v. Cressey, 137 N.H. 402; see also State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 (1997).
  • State v. Duffy 778 A.2d 415 N.H. 2001
    New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702 requires that opinion evidence, based upon scientific principles, must meet a threshold level of reliability to be admissible.
  • Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
  • Schneider v. Plymouth State College 744 A.2d 101 N.H. 1999
    The party bearing the burden of proof must introduce expert testimony “if the subject matter in dispute is beyond the general understanding of a jury.” State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 120, 697 A.2d 916, 921 (1997).
  • State v. Dahood 728 A.2d 817 N.H. 1999
    On appeal, the defendant urges us to consider Dr. Novak’s testimony as novel scientific evidence, the admissibility of which is subject to independent review.
  • Hungerford v. Jones 722 A.2d 478 N.H. 1998
  • State v. Walters 698 A.2d 1244 N.H. 1997
    CT. R. 8, requires us to determine the admissibility of a complaining witness’s testimony in a sexual assault trial when the witness, for a period of time, did not remember the charged conduct.