State v. Carroll, 79-131
| Citation | 120 N.H. 458,417 A.2d 8 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-131,79-131 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Richard H. CARROLL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Gregory H. Smith, Acting Atty. Gen. and Peter W. Mosseau, atty., (Michael A. Pignatelli, atty., orally), for the State.
Mulvey & Thornton P.A., Portsmouth (Michael P. Thornton, Portsmouth, orally), for defendant.
The defendant was found guilty of incest (RSA 639:2) after a jury trial in the Rockingham County Superior Court. This appeal involves the defendant's objections to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury. The defendant's exceptions were reserved and transferred to this court by King, J. We affirm.
The indictment upon which the defendant was tried alleged that "on or about" November 2, 1978, he did "with force and arms . . . have sexual intercourse with (the prosecutrix), his natural daughter, (a minor)." Pursuant to superior court rule 100, the defendant notified the county attorney's office of his intent to rely on an alibi defense and supplied the name and address of his alibi witness. Prior to trial, defendant's counsel deposed the prosecutrix and elicited testimony from her that indicated the alleged act occurred on November 2, 1978, at about 6:00 p. m.
At trial, the prosecutrix testified substantially in accord with her deposition, that on November 2, 1978, at approximately 6:00 p. m. at her home, she asked her father for money so that she could go to a disco dance at the Seacrest Laundromat and that he then had intercourse with her. When asked how she remembered the date, she replied "(i)t was two days before my brother tried to hang himself." Another witness subsequently testified and verified that the prosecutrix' brother had indeed attempted suicide on November 4, 1978. During cross-examination, the prosecutrix also testified that a local police officer had jokingly once asked her out for a date.
The prosecutrix' mother, defendant's wife, testified that on November 2, 1978 at 6:00 p. m., she was visiting neighbors and that when she returned the prosecutrix had gone to a dance but that the defendant was home.
The defendant attempted to refute his presence in the home that evening through the testimony of an alibi witness who testified that on November 2, 1978, he and the defendant ran errands and drank at a bar from 4:30 p. m. until midnight. The defendant also attempted to discredit the prosecutrix' veracity by calling as a witness the police officer who was supposed to have asked the prosecutrix for a date. He testified that he had never asked the prosecutrix out for a date. As the final defense witness, Mrs. Costello, director of the activities at the Seacrest Laundromat, testified that the only disco dance ever held there was a Halloween dance on October 27, and that there was no dance on November 2.
After the evidence was closed, the defendant objected to the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury that they could find the defendant guilty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed incest "on or about" November 2. The trial court overruled the objection and noted the defendant's exception. The court's charge to the jury also included a verbatim reading of the indictment, including the "on or about" language, to which the defendant did not object.
The sole issue presented to us by the defendant's brief relates to the defendant's contention that "(w)here the State has centered its entire case from investigation and indictment through opening argument and State's evidence on the premise that the alleged offense occurred on a specific date and time, (it is) a denial (of) the defendant's right to a fair trial to permit the State in its closing argument to argue that the jury could bring back a guilty verdict even if they believed that the alleged offense occurred on a date and time other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sands
...the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. State v. Glidden, 122 N.H. 41, 48, 441 A.2d 728, 732 (1982); State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 460, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980). The prosecution may elaborate on evidence relating to any motive, plan, or scheme which would explain the defendant......
-
State v. Thresher, 80-340
...or cause of the victim's death. See State v. Langdon, 121 N.H. at ---, 438 A.2d at 299 (decided December 8, 1981); State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 460, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980). The defendant moved to suppress the testimony of the accomplice, John Gillen, who was to testify for the State. The ......
-
State v. Bell
...of the indictment was not, however, an issue raised below and was thus not preserved as an issue for appeal. State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 460-61, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980); see State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 The defendant further argues that, even if the identity of ......
-
State v. Hughes, 90-445
... ... Remedial measures have been instituted by the various counties. As the State explains, grand juries presently meet once a month in Carroll, Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack and Rockingham counties, and at least every sixty days in the remaining counties, thus allowing the State to seek ... ...