State v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Eldridge

392 A.2d 155, 118 N.H. 665, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 264

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedSeptember 27, 1978

DocketNo. 78-126

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 392 A.2d 155 (State v. Eldridge) 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. Eldridge, 392 A.2d 155, 118 N.H. 665, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 264 (N.H. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

This is an appeal from a conviction of the defendant for robbery. Defendant seeks to have his conviction overturned on the twin grounds that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s case and in not setting aside the verdict of guilty as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The merits of the appeal rest wholly on an analysis of the facts. The established rule is that on review the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.” State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972); accord, State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976). A review of the facts reveals that the victim testified that the defendant robbed him, that he had picked defendant’s picture out of ninety different mug shots, that when first contacted by the police he said he knew who had robbed him, that the robber’s first name was Herbert and that he formerly drove a cab. There was conflicting evidence, but the case became a classic credibility dispute between two witnesses, the victim and a passenger in the defendant’s car. The jury chose to believe the victim, and we find no error in its doing so.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Memorandum

This is an appeal from a conviction of the defendant for robbery. Defendant seeks to have his conviction overturned on the twin grounds that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s case and in not setting aside the verdict of guilty as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The merits of the appeal rest wholly on an analysis of the facts. The established rule is that on review the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.” State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972); accord, State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976). A review of the facts reveals that the victim testified that the defendant robbed him, that he had picked defendant’s picture out of ninety different mug shots, that when first contacted by the police he said he knew who had robbed him, that the robber’s first name was Herbert and that he formerly drove a cab. There was conflicting evidence, but the case became a classic credibility dispute between two witnesses, the victim and a passenger in the defendant’s car. The jury chose to believe the victim, and we find no error in its doing so.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 A.2d 155, 118 N.H. 665, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eldridge-nh-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack