Cited by

Greenwood, 113 N.H. at 626; Miner, 122 N.H. at 87-88; see also State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 104 (2001) (explaining that the question is whether an indictment “contains the elements of the offense and enough facts to warn the defendant of the specific charges against him” (quotation omitted)).

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk 1 Furthermore, even if the allegation in the indictment that the defendant broke the victim’s nose, although not an element of the offense, had “the effect of specifying and circumscribing the scope of the allegations,” State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 101 (2001) (quotation omitted), the State was still not obligated to specifically prove that fact because the defendant was not prejudiced “in his ability to understand properly the charges against him[,] or in his ability to

In addition, “to obtain a conviction for class A felony theft by deception, the State need only prove, in addition to the elements set forth in RSA 637:4, I, that the property taken was valued at more than [$1,500].” State v. French, 3 146 N.H. 97, 100 (2001); see RSA 637:11, I(a).

Failure of proof as to an allegation can be considered a constructive amendment of the charging document.

“The 12 purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense and to enable him to prepare an intelligent defense.” State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 101 (2001) (quotation omitted).

However, “an element need not be stated in precise statutory language, if the indictment as a whole may fairly be understood to charge it.” State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 103 (2001) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Moreover, to the extent the defendant prepared his defense based upon his belief that the State had to prove that he removed the window screen, his “only surprise was the trial court’s application of the proper law.” State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 102 (2001) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

An element need not be stated in precise statutory language, if the information as a whole may fairly be understood to charge it.

The test to determine the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it provides the defendant with enough information to adequately prepare her defense.

The amount of the pecuniary loss establishes the grade of the offense.

The first exception occurs when the State provides a bill of particulars, which the State did not do in this case.

Moreover, the parties agree that the date of the offense in this case is a “middle-tier” allegation within the meaning of State v. French, 146 N.H. 97 (2001), in that it is neither an element of the offense nor a “cumulative or superfluous detail[] that may be properly disregarded as surplusage,” id.