State v. Baron
| Decision Date | 26 February 1965 |
| Citation | 106 N.H. 149,207 A.2d 447 |
| Parties | STATE v. Audias A. BARON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., George S. Pappagianis, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Emile R. Bussiere, County Atty., for the State.
Broderick, Craig & Bourque, Manchester (William H. Craig, Manchester, orally), for the defendant.
About 8:00 A.M. on December 4, 1963, a housewife reported to the Pelham police that she observed a man, who proved to be the defendant, walking in a very odd manner in the middle of the road and going therefrom into a wooded area between her home and that of a neighbor. Shortly thereafter the Pelham police began following foot tracks made in new snow and some time thereafter sighted the defendant ahead of them. The police chief, who was then accompanied by another officer, shouted at him to stop as they as police officers wanted to speak to him. The chief, who was in full uniform, then blew his whistle. The defendant turned and faced the police officers but kept going.
The officers kept following the tracks in the snow and found therein a brown shoe to a right foot which they picked up and also a brown felt hat which they found later. The defendant then swam across a brook and was apprehended findably in Dracut, Massachusetts, about 2:00 P.M. by Dracut and Pelham officers. He was taken to the Dracut police station and later to the Pelham station allegedly with his consent.
The defendant had been in the Pelham station from about 3 o'clock when at 5:15 P.M. notice was received by telephone that a Pelham residence had been broken into. This house was situated next to the home of the housewife who had called the police that morning and started the search for the defendant. Defendant was later indicted, tried and found guilty of breaking into and entering this house with intent to commit larceny.
There is no doubt that the Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offense with which the defendant was charged. Assuming that the defendant was illegally arrested in Massachusetts in the early afternoon of December 4, 1963, before the officers knew that the break had taken place; and that he as brought to this State without his consent (although it could be found on the record that he came to New Hampshire voluntarily); this would not preclude a subsequent valid indictment and trial. Hall v. State, 233 Md. 378, 196 A.2d 874; Swogger v. Maxwell, 176 Ohio St. 415, 200 N.E.2d 313; Curry v. State, 235 Md. 378, 201 A.2d 792.
The Trial Court having jurisdiction over the offense, and over the defendant because of his physical presence before it, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. Springer v. Hungerford, 100 N.H. 503, 505, 130 A.2d 538; State v. Coan, 91 N.H. 489, 23 A.2d 369; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; Hobson v. Crouse, 332 F.2d 561 (10th Cir.1964); State v. Stewart, 87 Idaho 210, 392 P.2d 180 (1964); State v. Clark, 392 P.2d 539 (Wyoming 1964); Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487, 197 A.2d 238.
There was ample evidence in the record to support a verdict of guilty. However defendant maintains that certain articles of apparel, worn by him on the day of the crime, December 4, 1963, introduced in evidence at the trial were inadmissible as products of illegal search and seizure. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933; Fahy v. State of Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171.
The police learned about 5:15 P.M. on that day that the home of one Lareau in Pelham had been broken into. In their investigation of the break later that evening the police made a plaster cast of foot prints in the snow leading to a window through which entrance to the Lareau house was alleged to have been made. State v. Mihoy, 98 N.H. 38, 93 A.2d 661, 35 A.L.R.2d 852. At the trial a shoe picked up by the police in their prior pursuit of the defendant was introduced in evidence as having been worn by him in making the tracks found outside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coolidge
...652; United States ex rel. Stacey v. Pate, 324 F.2d 934, 935 (7th Cir.1963); People v. Woods, 26 Ill.2d 557, 188 N.E.2d 1; State v. Baron, 106 N.H. ----, 207 A.2d 447 (decided February 26, 1965). The Trial Court properly found on the evidence that the principal purpose of the visit to defen......
-
State v. Reams
...652; United States ex rel. Stacey v. Pate, 324 F.2d 934, 935 (7th Cir. 1963); People v. Woods, 26 Ill.2d 557, 188 N.E.2d 1; State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 207 A.2d 447. 'The evidence warranted the Trial Court's finding that 'there was no search by the police of the premises'; and that 'Mrs. ......
-
State v. Rodgers
...Commonwealth v. Gorman, 288 Mass. 294, 192 N.E. 618 (1934); People v. Miller, 235 Mich. 340, 209 N.E. 81 (1926); State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 207 A.2d 447 (1965); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 144 (1961); 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 380 (1981); 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 116 (1962); Annot., 56 ALR. 2......
-
Bonser v. Courtney
...the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the underlying action and over the defendant, State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 151, 207 A.2d 447, 449 (1965), the person imprisoned and seeking the writ will be discharged from commitment. State v. Towle supra. However, if th......