State v. Heger

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Heger

380 A.2d 1106, 117 N.H. 1021, 1977 N.H. LEXIS 489

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 16, 1977

DocketNo. 7875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 380 A.2d 1106 (State v. Heger) 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. Heger, 380 A.2d 1106, 117 N.H. 1021, 1977 N.H. LEXIS 489 (N.H. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault on Albert Perozzi by striking him in the mouth with a hammer and his exceptions were transferred by DiClerico, J. The jury was instructed that the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense. Defendant’s contention, that the lack of direct evidence to rebut the defendant’s state of mind that he was acting in self-defense coupled with evidence that after the assault defendant did not flee but instead called the police and an ambulance prevents the required finding, cannot be accepted. The jury could have made the required finding on the testimony of the victim as to the circumstances of the assault and could disbelieve the defendant. State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 293, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967); State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 379 A.2d 813 (1977).

Exceptions overruled.

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

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault on Albert Perozzi by striking him in the mouth with a hammer and his exceptions were transferred by DiClerico, J. The jury was instructed that the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense. Defendant’s contention, that the lack of direct evidence to rebut the defendant’s state of mind that he was acting in self-defense coupled with evidence that after the assault defendant did not flee but instead called the police and an ambulance prevents the required finding, cannot be accepted. The jury could have made the required finding on the testimony of the victim as to the circumstances of the assault and could disbelieve the defendant. State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 293, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967); State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 379 A.2d 813 (1977).

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 A.2d 1106, 117 N.H. 1021, 1977 N.H. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heger-nh-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack