State v. Amero
| Decision Date | 26 February 1965 |
| Parties | STATE v. Harold E. AMERO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Irma A. Matthews, Concord, for the State.
James A. Connor, Manchester (by brief and orally), for defendant.
The defendant was charged by three indictments with (1) breaking and entering in the nighttime on February 15, 1963 the Junior High School in Rochester and stealing two RCA 23 inch table model television sets, (2) breaking and entering in the nighttime on February 8, 1963 the N. H. Public Works and Highway Department garage situated on routes 4 and 9 in Barrington and stealing two scuba-diving suits with accessories which included an air compressor and (3) breaking and entering in the nighttime on January 20, 1963 the Junior High School in Rochester and stealing a Corona portable typewriter.
The State's evidence tended to establish the following facts:
On January 20, 1963 a portable typewriter was stolen from the Rochester Junior High School. Later on February 8, 1963 forced entry was made into the garage of the N. H. Public Works and Highways Department at Barrington and scuba-diving equipment with accessories including an air compressor was stolen. Thereafter on February 15, 1963 two television sets were stolen from the Junior High School in Rochester.
One Joseph Natola, operator of a second-hand store in Lynn, Massachusetts testified that during the first part of February 1963 he was contacted by one Gene Herbert (who is described in both briefs as a co-defendant with Amero) about the purchase of some silver coins. Later Amero appeared and sold Natola a typewriter for $15.00 which was later identified as the one stolen from the Rochester Junior High School. Thereafter Amero sold him two television sets for $50.00 which Natola paid for by check post-dated at Amero's request. Amero was alone at the sale of the first set and with Herbert when the second one was sold. The defendant also offered to sell Natola some diving outfits. Herbert and Amero appeared together at his store at least twice and Amero came alone on three different occasions.
During the early part of February 1963 Amero and Herbert sold an air compressor to a painting contractor in Rochester for which he paid $50.00 with a check made out to Herbert.
During January and February 1963 Herbert was living with his sister in Rochester. Amero came to her home nearly every day during that time to see Herbert and sometimes at night. Amero had a car but Herbert did not.
After Amero and Herbert were apprehended an inspector of the Rochester Police Department talked with Herbert who admitted he broke into the Rochester Junior High School and took two television sets and into the State Highway Garage in Barrington and stole the diving suits but denied stealing the typewriter on January 20, 1963.
Later at Amero's request the inspector discussed the case with Amero. Amero stated that Herbert had done the breaking and entering and had stolen the various articles. Herbert was brought in and Amero repeated the same statement. Herbert shook his fist at Amero and stated 'If that's the way you want to play it, that's the way I'll play it.'
The principal contention of the defendant is that the State failed to prove all material elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In support of this contention the defendant argues that the State introduced no direct evidence of breaking and entering and stealing at or about the time of the alleged offense and that the guilt of the defendant was established by circumstantial evidence which was insufficient to support the verdicts of guilty.
It is not disputed that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for a jury to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. White, 91 N.H. 109, 113, 14 A.2d 253; State v. Ellard, 95 N.H. 217, 60 A.2d 461. Neither the lack of an eyewitness nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...Circumstantial evidence may be utilized as proof of a crime, and eyewitnesses to the offense charged are not essential. State v. Amero, 106 N.H. 134, 136, 207 A.2d 440. Exceptions sustained in part and overruled in part; GRIMES, J., concurred in the result; the others concurred. ...
-
State v. Cote, 5579
...burglary at the Bettez residence. State v. Enright, 108 N.H. --, 231 A.2d 628; State v. Rumney, 108 N.H. 40, 226 A.2d 777; State v. Amero, 106 N.H. 134, 207 A.2d 440; See State v. Santos, 107 N.H. 490, 225 A.2d 617. Defendant's motions based on the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a......
-
State v. Gilbert
...(2d Cir. 1970). It is well settled in this State that a criminal conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence (State v. Amero, 106 N.H. 134, 207 A.2d 440 (1965); State v. Davis, 108 N.H. 45, 226 A.2d 873 (1967)), where 'all of the factors and circumstances' in evidence are sufficient ......
-
State v. Wills
...192, 43 A.L.R.2d 827; State v. Mihoy, 98 N.H. 38, 93 A.2d 661, 35 A.L.R.2d 852; State v. Burley, 95 N.H. 77, 57 A.2d 618; State v. Amero, 106 N.H. 134, 207 A.2d 440. 'Some statutes and judicial decisions go so far as to create a presumption that an unexplained breaking and entering is made ......