State v. Farwell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Farwell

148 A.2d 653, 102 N.H. 3, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 2

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedFebruary 27, 1959

Docket4653

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 148 A.2d 653 (State v. Farwell) 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. Farwell, 148 A.2d 653, 102 N.H. 3, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 2 (N.H. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Blandin, J.

It is too well settled here to require extended citation that the test to determine the sufficiency of a complaint or indictment is to inquire whether it “informs the defendant ‘of the nature and cause of the accusation with sufficient definiteness’ so that he can prepare for trial.” State v. Rousten, 84 N. H. 140, 143.

It is not essential to the validity of a complaint or indictment that it could possibly be made more comprehensive and certain; it is only necessary that it allege “every element of the offense charged in language sufficiently definite to apprise the respondents of what they-'must be prepared to meet for trial.” State v. Story, 97 N. H. 141, 146. In the present case the complaint used the words of the statute and also alleged specific overt acts, namely that the defendant threw “two stones on the windshield” of the automobile of the complainant’s husband, “whereby” his property was damaged “in an amount exceeding Fifteen Dollars.” This has been held sufficient. See State v. Davis, 99 N. H. 88, 89.

Such cases as State v. Gilbert, 89 N. H. 134, relied upon by the defendant, where the accused was not informed of facts reasonably necessary to enable him to prepare for trial, are clearly distinguishable from the situation before us and do not support the defendant’s position. It follows the order is

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Blandin, J.

It is too well settled here to require extended citation that the test to determine the sufficiency of a complaint or indictment is to inquire whether it “informs the defendant ‘of the nature and cause of the accusation with sufficient definiteness’ so that he can prepare for trial.” State v. Rousten, 84 N. H. 140, 143.

It is not essential to the validity of a complaint or indictment that it could possibly be made more comprehensive and certain; it is only necessary that it allege “every element of the offense charged in language sufficiently definite to apprise the respondents of what they-'must be prepared to meet for trial.” State v. Story, 97 N. H. 141, 146. In the present case the complaint used the words of the statute and also alleged specific overt acts, namely that the defendant threw “two stones on the windshield” of the automobile of the complainant’s husband, “whereby” his property was damaged “in an amount exceeding Fifteen Dollars.” This has been held sufficient. See State v. Davis, 99 N. H. 88, 89.

Such cases as State v. Gilbert, 89 N. H. 134, relied upon by the defendant, where the accused was not informed of facts reasonably necessary to enable him to prepare for trial, are clearly distinguishable from the situation before us and do not support the defendant’s position. It follows the order is

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.2d 653, 102 N.H. 3, 1959 N.H. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-farwell-nh-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack