State v. O'Brien, 6785
| Decision Date | 29 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 6785,6785 |
| Parties | STATE v. William H. O'BRIEN, III. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Thomas D. Rath, Asst. Atty., Gen., by brief, for the State.
Glen E. Graper, Portsmouth, by brief, for defendant.
Appeal from a conviction for grand larceny under RSA 582:3 and attempted grand larceny under RSA 590:6 raising the issues of whether or not instructions were required as to the lesser-included offense of 'joy-riding' and as to the reliability of testimony of accomplices. These issues were reserved and transferred by Mullavey, J.
On June 20, 1972, a Kawasaki trail bike which had cost $325 was reported missing from the garage of a Dover resident. The following night an attempt to steal another motorcycle was foiled when the would-be thief, on being discovered, abandoned the motorcycle and escaped to some nearby woods. The defendant was charged with larceny under RSA 582:3 and attempted larceny under RSA 590:6 and convicted of both offenses largely on the testimony of accomplices.
The accomplice to the successfully executed crime testified that, at defendant's suggestion, he drove the defendant to the owner's home and stood watch while the defendant removed the bike from a garage where it was housed. They then hid the bike in a nearby sandpit. The accomplice to the crime of attempted larceny testified that the following day the defendant took him to the hiding place and showed him the bike which the defendant said he had 'stolen' from the owner. The second accomplice testified further that in the evening of that same day he and the defendant while riding around Dover in the accomplice's car, spotted a motorcycle parked beside a house. They parked the car, and, while the accomplice hid behind a tree, the defendant pushed the motorcycle through the backyards of adjoining houses. When detected by a neighbor, the defendant assertedly dropped the motorcycle and ran, losing his glasses in the flight. Another neighbor testified that on the night in question a young man, whom she identified as the defendant, came to her home shortly after this incident and asked to borrow a flashlight to look for his glasses. Two weeks after the first theft, the owner testified he received an anonymous phone call informing him of the location of his trail bike. The bike had been damaged more than the amount of its purchase price. The muffler had been sawed off, the fenders removed, the wiring cut and the head-lamp and shifting gear bent. Defendant's defense consisted of denying any knowledge of or involvement in the incidents and attacking the credibility of the accomplices' testimony by arguing that a vindictive police inspector led them to falsely inculpate defendant in exchange for leniency from the police. At the conclusion of the court's instructions to the jury but before the jury retired, defense counsel orally requested an instruction on 'joy-riding'. The request was denied.
The joy-riding statute prohibits 'wilfully, mischievously and without claim of right' taking another's vehicle 'but not with the intent to steal the same.' RSA 572:45. The essential difference between the felony of grand larceny and the misdemeanor of joy-riding lies in the intent of the defendant to either permanently deprive another of his property and convert it to his own use or to take it wihout authorization but not with the intent to keep it.
An instruction on a lesser-included offense should be freely given where counsel requests it and it is compatible with the evidence of the trial. United States v. Sinclair, 144...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Etzweiler
...resulting. A lesser-included offense is one which "must necessarily be included in the greater ... offense." State v. O'Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 235-36, 317 A.2d 783, 784 (1974). For a manslaughter conviction, the State must show that the defendant recklessly caused death and this encompasses t......
-
Dukette v. Perrin
...a finding of guilt on the lesser offense.'" State v. Boone, supra 119 N.H. at 597, 406 A.2d at 114, quoting State v. O'Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 235-36, 317 A.2d 783, 784 (1974). In other words, the lesser offense must be included within but not, on the facts of the case, be completely encompass......
-
State v. Cote, 83-334
...Perkins, Criminal Law 266 (2d ed. 1969) (at common law intent to steal required intent to deprive permanently); State v. O'Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 235, 317 A.2d 783, 784 (1974) (grand larceny but not "joy riding" requires intent to deprive The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the g......
-
Goodman v. State
...the evidence furnishes no rational basis for jury consideration of the requested instruction that it may be refused. State v. O'Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 317 A.2d 783 (1974); State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 319 A.2d 636 (1974). There was substantial evidence of intoxication in this case and the de......