State v. Comparone

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Comparone

269 A.2d 131, 110 N.H. 398, 1970 N.H. LEXIS 181

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedSeptember 8, 1970

Docket5957

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 269 A.2d 131 (State v. Comparone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Comparone, 269 A.2d 131, 110 N.H. 398, 1970 N.H. LEXIS 181 (N.H. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Lampron, J.

Appeal from a conviction for operating a motor vehicle on a public way under the influence of intoxicating liquor. RSA 262-A:62. Trial before Leahy, C.J., at which both a jury and a stenographic record were waived, resulted in a verdict of guilty. At the conclusion of the State’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal on several grounds among which that there had been no opinion testimony by any witness for the prosecution that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court permitted the State to reopen and such evidence was introduced by way of the opinion of die arresting officer. The only issue before us is defendant’s exception to the court’s allowing the State to reopen.

It is the rule in criminal cases that the trial court in the exercise of sound discretion may reopen a case for the purpose of admitting testimony in behalf of either the prosecution or the defense. State v. Petkus, 110 N.H. 394, 269 A.2d 123; United States v. Glass, 421 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1969); Annot., 87 A.L.R.2d 849, 851.

Judicial discretion has been defined as “that power of decision, exercised to the necessary end of awarding justice, and based upon reason and the law, but for which decision there is no special governing statute or rule.” Bowers, Judicial Discretion of Trial Courts í. 10, at 14 (1931). See 1 Wigmore, Evidence 5. 16 (3d ed. 1940). It follows that no hard and fast rule for the guidance of the trial court’s discretion can be laid down. State v. Wolf, 44 N.J. 176, 191, 207 A.2d 670, 679.

To constitute an abuse, reversible on appeal, the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of the objecting party. Bowers, supra s. 13, at 25. The defendant has failed to show that under the circumstances the trial court could not reasonably reopen the case to permit the State to introduce the opinion of the arresting officer as to his intoxication. Nawn v. Railroad, 77 N.H. 299, 301-04, 91 A.181, 182-84.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lampron, J.

Appeal from a conviction for operating a motor vehicle on a public way under the influence of intoxicating liquor. RSA 262-A:62. Trial before Leahy, C.J., at which both a jury and a stenographic record were waived, resulted in a verdict of guilty. At the conclusion of the State’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal on several grounds among which that there had been no opinion testimony by any witness for the prosecution that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court permitted the State to reopen and such evidence was introduced by way of the opinion of die arresting officer. The only issue before us is defendant’s exception to the court’s allowing the State to reopen.

It is the rule in criminal cases that the trial court in the exercise of sound discretion may reopen a case for the purpose of admitting testimony in behalf of either the prosecution or the defense. State v. Petkus, 110 N.H. 394, 269 A.2d 123; United States v. Glass, 421 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1969); Annot., 87 A.L.R.2d 849, 851.

Judicial discretion has been defined as “that power of decision, exercised to the necessary end of awarding justice, and based upon reason and the law, but for which decision there is no special governing statute or rule.” Bowers, Judicial Discretion of Trial Courts í. 10, at 14 (1931). See 1 Wigmore, Evidence 5. 16 (3d ed. 1940). It follows that no hard and fast rule for the guidance of the trial court’s discretion can be laid down. State v. Wolf, 44 N.J. 176, 191, 207 A.2d 670, 679.

To constitute an abuse, reversible on appeal, the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of the objecting party. Bowers, supra s. 13, at 25. The defendant has failed to show that under the circumstances the trial court could not reasonably reopen the case to permit the State to introduce the opinion of the arresting officer as to his intoxication. Nawn v. Railroad, 77 N.H. 299, 301-04, 91 A.181, 182-84.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.2d 131, 110 N.H. 398, 1970 N.H. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-comparone-nh-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack