State v. Cushing

399 A.2d 297, 119 N.H. 147, 1979 N.H. LEXIS 256
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 7, 1979
Docket78-249
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 399 A.2d 297 (State v. Cushing) 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. Cushing, 399 A.2d 297, 119 N.H. 147, 1979 N.H. LEXIS 256 (N.H. 1979).

Opinion

DOUGLAS, J.

This case concerns the constitutionality of Superior Court Rule 86, which requires the payment of an eight dollar fee to the superior court before amisdemeanor appeal from a district or municipal court may be tried by a jury under our de novo two-tier system. RSA 502-A:ll; RSA ch. 599. Defendants were convicted in the Hampton District Court of criminal trespass and sentenced to confinement. They appealed to superior court, requesting trial by a jury of their peers, and filed an application seeking waiver of the eight dollar fee required in appeals from nonjury courts. Super. Ct. Rule 94, RSA 491: App. R. 94 (Cum. Supp. 1978) and RSA 499:18 (Supp. 1977). The application was denied and defendants claim that the rule is unconstitutional on its face. This question of law was transferred without ruling by Mullavey, J.

In State v. Basinow, 117 N.H. 176, 821 A.2d 458 (1977), we upheld the eight dollar fee against constitutional challenge in an appeal that concerned a noncriminal motor vehicle violation. That case did not *148 involve a trial by jury. We now must decide whether the fee is permitted in the context of a criminal case in which the defendant is entitled to a jury trial.

The New Hampshire Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury. N.H. CONST, pt. I, art. 15. “It has never been denied or doubted that by this article trial by jury . . . is secured to the defendant in all criminal cases without exception.” State v. Gerry, 68 N.H. 495, 496, 38 A. 272, 272 (1896). Part I, article 14 of the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees that citizens must “obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it.” The right to a jury trial for a criminal defendant is fundamental to our system of criminal justice. But see RSA 625:9 11(b).

The Supreme Court of the United States, when confronted with a conflict between the fundamental right to vote and a State’s asserted interest in collecting a poll tax, struck down the tax as a violation of equal protection, concluding that “we say the same whether the citizen, otherwise qualified to vote, has $1.50 in his pocket or nothing at all, pays the fee or fails to pay it.” Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 668 (1966). Similarly, we conclude that a criminal defendant cannot be required to purchase a jury trial — even for so nominal a sum as eight dollars. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that persons accused of misdemeanors begun by information in superior court as well as all felons are entitled to atrial by jury and are not required to pay a fee. The fee requirements of Superior Court Rule 86 are void by virtue of N.H. Const, pt. I, arts. 14 and 15 only insofar as they relate to jury trials for criminal cases. See RSA 625:9 II and State v. Basinow, supra.

Except for these defendants or any pending appeals where the fee has not yet been paid, this opinion will not be given retroactive effect. See Smith v. State, 118 N.H. 764, 394 A.2d 834 (1978).

Remanded for trial.

BOIS, J., did not sit; the others concurred.

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

Related

Jermaine Earvin Johnson v. State
562 S.W.3d 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)
Downey v. Pierce County
267 P.3d 445 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2011)
LaMarche v. McCarthy
965 A.2d 992 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2008)
Follansbee v. Plymouth District Court
856 A.2d 740 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2004)
Christie v. People of Aurora Ex Rel. State
837 P.2d 1237 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
Opinion of the Justices
608 A.2d 874 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1992)
In re Estate of Dionne
518 A.2d 178 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1986)
State v. Morrill
465 A.2d 882 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983)
State v. Sands
467 A.2d 202 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983)
Kozerski v. Smith
555 F. Supp. 212 (D. New Hampshire, 1983)
State v. Gorman
421 A.2d 141 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1980)
State v. Givner
407 A.2d 824 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1979)
Estate of Cargill v. City of Rochester
406 A.2d 704 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
399 A.2d 297, 119 N.H. 147, 1979 N.H. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cushing-nh-1979.