Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Dixon, 741 A.2d 580.
-
State v. Jason Czekalski
158 A.3d 1166
N.H. 2017
State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 283-84 (1999), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526 (2011).
-
State v. Quintero
34 A.3d 612
N.H. 2011
What was implicit in Carter became explicit in State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273 (1999).
-
In Re Sawyer
8 A.3d 80
N.H. 2010
In criminal actions, we require that a complaint or indictment “contain the elements of the offense and enough facts to notify the defendant of the specific charges,” but it “need not specify the means by which the crime was accomplished or other facts that are not essential to the elements of the crime.” Id.; see State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 275-76 (1999) (upholding trial court’s denial of bill of particulars where indictment alleged sexual assault had occurred over forty-four month period and
-
State v. Kelly
999 A.2d 303
N.H. 2010
Indeed, “[t]he 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. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 275 (1999) *197 (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Johnson
951 A.2d 146
N.H. 2008
The trial court, however, need not use the specific language requested by the defendant and has discretion to decide whether a particular charge will assist the jury in reaching a verdict.
-
State v. White
920 A.2d 1216
N.H. 2007
The trial court need not use the specific language requested by the defendant and has discretion to decide whether a particular limiting instruction will assist the jury in reaching a verdict.
-
State v. Sweeney
867 A.2d 441
N.H. 2005
The decision whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.
-
State v. Glodgett
813 A.2d 444
N.H. 2002
Because the Federal Constitution affords no greater protection in this area than the State Constitution, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.
-
State v. Mitchell
808 A.2d 62
N.H. 2002
Because the Federal Confrontation Clause affords no greater protection than the State Confrontation Clause, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.
-
State v. Newman
808 A.2d 7
N.H. 2002
Because the federal Confrontation Clause affords no greater protection than the State Confrontation Clause, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.
-
State v. LeBaron
808 A.2d 541
N.H. 2002
We interpret statutory language in accordance with its common usage and where such language “is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute itself for further indications of legislative intent.” State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 283 (1999) (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Spaulding
794 A.2d 800
N.H. 2002
Because the Federal Confrontation Clause affords no greater protection than the State Confrontation Clause, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.
-
State v. Munson
781 A.2d 1
N.H. 2001
Because the Federal Constitution offers the defendant no greater protections in this area, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.
-
State v. Hill
781 A.2d 979
N.H. 2001
We interpret statutory language in accordance with its common usage.
-
State v. Gordon
770 A.2d 702
N.H. 2001
Knowles v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 140 N.H. 387, 389 (1995); State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 278 (1999).
-
State v. Woodard
769 A.2d 379
N.H. 2001
Given the extensive efforts of the legislature to protect young victims against sexual assault, we cannot conclude that its intent was to prevent such prosecution.
-
State v. French
776 A.2d 1253
N.H. 2001
“The 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. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 275 (1999) (quotation omitted).
-
State v. Michaud
777 A.2d 840
N.H. 2001
Because the federal standard provides the defendant no greater protection, we need not undertake a separate federal analysis.