State v. Komisarek

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Komisarek

388 A.2d 1263, 118 N.H. 524, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 230

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJuly 18, 1978

DocketNo. 78-031

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 388 A.2d 1263 (State v. Komisarek) 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. Komisarek, 388 A.2d 1263, 118 N.H. 524, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 230 (N.H. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted of speeding in the district court and appealed. He was tried by the court and convicted in the superior court and a fine of $30 was imposed. He appealed to this court and petitioned that because he was without funds that a transcript of the testimony at his trial be supplied by the county. After a hearing, the court found that defendant was financially unable to pay for the transcript but found that the appeal is frivolous and that because speeding is a violation only, he was not entitled to a free transcript.

Speeding is a violation, RSA 262-A:2 and RSA 262-A:54, and not a crime. RSA 651:2 IV. Defendant is not therefore entitled as a matter of right to a free transcript and, in view of the finding that the appeal is frivolous, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the petition. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976).

Exceptions overruled.

Brock, j., did not sit.

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

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted of speeding in the district court and appealed. He was tried by the court and convicted in the superior court and a fine of $30 was imposed. He appealed to this court and petitioned that because he was without funds that a transcript of the testimony at his trial be supplied by the county. After a hearing, the court found that defendant was financially unable to pay for the transcript but found that the appeal is frivolous and that because speeding is a violation only, he was not entitled to a free transcript.

Speeding is a violation, RSA 262-A:2 and RSA 262-A:54, and not a crime. RSA 651:2 IV. Defendant is not therefore entitled as a matter of right to a free transcript and, in view of the finding that the appeal is frivolous, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the petition. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976).

Exceptions overruled.

Brock, j., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 A.2d 1263, 118 N.H. 524, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-komisarek-nh-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack