State v. Dunton

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Dunton

274 A.2d 876, 111 N.H. 42, 1971 N.H. LEXIS 118

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 26, 1971

DocketNo. 6070

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.2d 876 (State v. Dunton) 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. Dunton, 274 A.2d 876, 111 N.H. 42, 1971 N.H. LEXIS 118 (N.H. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The defendant was charged in the Jaffrey District Court under RSA 262-A:29 for failure to yield the right of way. He moved to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy and the case was transferred under RSA 502-A: 17-a by Hampsey, Jr., District Judge.

It appears that prior to the present proceeding, which was initiated on May 17, 1968, a previous complaint had been brought on March 22 of the same year under RSA 262-A:50. In that instance, the defendant moved to dismiss upon the grounds that the complaint “did not state a crime.” No evi[43]*43dence was introduced; the court merely listened to defendant’s and the prosecuting officer’s arguments, and then granted the motion to dismiss on the specific ground urged by the defendant. It thus appears that the defendant was never in jeopardy because he could not be convicted on a complaint which failed to state an offense. State v. Sherburne, 58 N.H. 535 (1879); State v. Moore, 93 N.H. 169, 172, 37 A.2d 15, 17 (1944); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law s. 246; see State v. Donovan, 97 N.H. 190, 192, 84 A.2d 405, 407 (1951).

In summary, the defendant was never before tried or placed in jeopardy because of the offense for which he now stands charged. His motion to dismiss upon the grounds of double jeopardy was properly denied. State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778 (1950).

The order is

Remanded.

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

Per curiam.

The defendant was charged in the Jaffrey District Court under RSA 262-A:29 for failure to yield the right of way. He moved to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy and the case was transferred under RSA 502-A: 17-a by Hampsey, Jr., District Judge.

It appears that prior to the present proceeding, which was initiated on May 17, 1968, a previous complaint had been brought on March 22 of the same year under RSA 262-A:50. In that instance, the defendant moved to dismiss upon the grounds that the complaint “did not state a crime.” No evi[43]*43dence was introduced; the court merely listened to defendant’s and the prosecuting officer’s arguments, and then granted the motion to dismiss on the specific ground urged by the defendant. It thus appears that the defendant was never in jeopardy because he could not be convicted on a complaint which failed to state an offense. State v. Sherburne, 58 N.H. 535 (1879); State v. Moore, 93 N.H. 169, 172, 37 A.2d 15, 17 (1944); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law s. 246; see State v. Donovan, 97 N.H. 190, 192, 84 A.2d 405, 407 (1951).

In summary, the defendant was never before tried or placed in jeopardy because of the offense for which he now stands charged. His motion to dismiss upon the grounds of double jeopardy was properly denied. State v. Cook, 96 N.H. 212, 72 A.2d 778 (1950).

The order is

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.2d 876, 111 N.H. 42, 1971 N.H. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dunton-nh-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack