State v. Green

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Green

338 A.2d 549, 115 N.H. 241, 1975 N.H. LEXIS 273

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMay 30, 1975

DocketNo. 6659

StatusPublished

This text of 338 A.2d 549 (State v. Green) 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. Green, 338 A.2d 549, 115 N.H. 241, 1975 N.H. LEXIS 273 (N.H. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. His exception to the refusal of the court to exclude the actual result of a blood test and limit the evidence to the fact that the test of his blood exceeded the amount required to establish a prima facie case was transferred by Keller, C.J. RSA 262-A:63 (Supp. 1973) states that the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in defendant’s blood and that evidence of ten hundredths percent “or more” is prima facie evidence of intoxication. We find no merit in the contention that the actual result of the blood test be excluded. Trial judges are capable of preventing any improper use of the evidence in argument or otherwise.

Exception overruled.

Kenison, C.J., did not sit.

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

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. His exception to the refusal of the court to exclude the actual result of a blood test and limit the evidence to the fact that the test of his blood exceeded the amount required to establish a prima facie case was transferred by Keller, C.J. RSA 262-A:63 (Supp. 1973) states that the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in defendant’s blood and that evidence of ten hundredths percent “or more” is prima facie evidence of intoxication. We find no merit in the contention that the actual result of the blood test be excluded. Trial judges are capable of preventing any improper use of the evidence in argument or otherwise.

Exception overruled.

Kenison, C.J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 A.2d 549, 115 N.H. 241, 1975 N.H. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-green-nh-1975.