State v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Mitchell

381 A.2d 1198, 118 N.H. 1, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJanuary 16, 1978

DocketNo. 7753

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 A.2d 1198 (State v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, 381 A.2d 1198, 118 N.H. 1, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 328 (N.H. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

Defendants were convicted in Durham District Court of attempted theft in violation of RSA 687:3. There is no transcript of the testimony. After several procedural events not material to the issue before us, the District Court (Nadeau, J.) denied the defendants’ motion to certify to this court, in advance of an appeal de novo to the superior court, the question whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Defendants thereafter filed [2]*2this petition for a writ of certiorari in this court claiming an abuse of discretion on the part of the Durham District Court.

Defendants have not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant a certification of questions of law to this court under the provisions of RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp. 1975) and RSA 491:17. State v. Varney, 117 N.H. 163, 370 A.2d 289 (1977); State v. Doyle, 117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977).

Petition dismissed.

Lampron, J., did not sit.

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

Memorandum Opinion

Defendants were convicted in Durham District Court of attempted theft in violation of RSA 687:3. There is no transcript of the testimony. After several procedural events not material to the issue before us, the District Court (Nadeau, J.) denied the defendants’ motion to certify to this court, in advance of an appeal de novo to the superior court, the question whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Defendants thereafter filed [2]*2this petition for a writ of certiorari in this court claiming an abuse of discretion on the part of the Durham District Court.

Defendants have not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant a certification of questions of law to this court under the provisions of RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp. 1975) and RSA 491:17. State v. Varney, 117 N.H. 163, 370 A.2d 289 (1977); State v. Doyle, 117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977).

Petition dismissed.

Lampron, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 A.2d 1198, 118 N.H. 1, 1978 N.H. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-nh-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack