Beaudoin v. State, No. 6554

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Writing for the Court: KENISON
• Citation: 311 A.2d 310,113 N.H. 559
• Parties: Aurele A. BEAUDOIN v. STATE of New Hampshire.
• Docket Number: No. 6554
• Decision Date: 31 October 1973

Page 310

311 A.2d 310 113 N.H. 559 Aurele A. BEAUDOIN
v.
STATE of New Hampshire. No. 6554. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Oct. 31, 1973.

Page 311

Eaton, Eaton, Ross, Moody & Solms, Manchester, (Clifford J. Ross, Manchester, orally) for plaintiff.

Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Thomas D. Rath, Concord, atty., for defendant.

KENISON, Chief Justice.

The issue presented in this case concerns the scope of jurisdiction of the superior court under the Declaratory Judgment Act. RSA 491:22. The plaintiff has brought a petition for declaratory relief in the superior court to determine whether his conviction under RSA 70:2 V(5) for a contribution to a political candidate without the candidate's knowledge and written consent, which resulted in a fine of one hundred dollars, fifty of which was suspended, established[113 N.H. 560] proof of a wilful violation of the election laws of New Hampshire. Under N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 11 such proof would deprive him of the right to vote and to hold public office for the rest of his life unless restored by judicial process. This constitutional provision provides in part that 'no person shall have the right to vote or be eligible to office under the constitution of this state who shall have been convicted of treason, bribery, or any wilful violation of the election laws of this state, or of the United States.'

The attorney general's office has taken the position that the plaintiff's violation of RSA 70:2 V(5) was wilful, but has not commenced any official action to prevent him from exercising his rights. The plaintiff denies that his violation was wilful and has voted and filed for public office since his conviction. He contends, however, that the attorney general's office has created such uncertainty as to his rights and the press has generated such adverse publicity as to his personal and political

Page 312

reputation that the question should be resolved at the present time through a declaratory judgment. The State argues that the absence of official action and the availability of other procedures for the determination of the plaintiff's rights make declaratory relief inappropriate at this time. The Superior Court (Loughlin, J.) reserved and transferred without ruling the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court.

In order to justify declaratory relief, an action must be within the terms of RSA 491:22, which requires that a present right of the plaintiff be subjected to an adverse claim. Gitsis v. Thornton, 91 N.H. 192, 16 A.2d 369 (1940); Wallace v. Brown, 89 N.H. 561, 3 A.2d 95 (1938). The statute has been construed to encompass any 'act of the defendant '(which is) sufficiently definite to constitute a genuine threat or prejudice' to the plaintiff's interests.' Merchants Mut. Cas. Co. v. Kennett, 90 N.H. 253, 255, 7 A.2d 249, 250 (1939) (quoting Borchard, Justiciability, 4 U.Chi.L.Rev. 1, 27 (1936)). In the present case, the attorney general's office has subjected the plaintiff to uncertainty as to his rights by maintaining that the violation was wilful. The correctness of this view is a matter of...