State v. Collins
Decision Date | 29 December 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 6259,6259 |
Citation | 298 A.2d 742,112 N.H. 449 |
Parties | STATE v. Russell E. COLLINS, Jr., alias Earl Russell. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Henry F. Spaloss, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
William P. Shea, Dover, by brief and orally, for defendant.
This case involves the validity of a search warrant and the admission in evidence of inculpatory statements of defendant.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to kill under RSA 585:22 and possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell under RSA 318-B:26(I)(a)(2)(supp.). His exceptions were transferred by Loughlin, J.
On April 5, 1970, Lt. LeBoeuf obtained a search warrant from a justice of the Manchester District Court to search defendant's room in a rooming house. The affidavit in support of the warrant read as follows:
At the foot of the affidavit, the magistrate wrote the following:
Lt. LeBoeuf and Lt. Lord, armed with the warrant, went to the rooming house managed by Boudreau who escorted them to the door of defendant's room. When defendant answered the door in response to the knock, Boudreau introduced the police and left. According to the officers, they informed defendant of the warrant and entered. There was a girl in the bed with her back turned to them. Lord left the room to call for assistance, and the girl then began to cry. Defendant asked if he could comfort her and LeBoeuf, after refusing, relented. While leaning over the girl, defendant obtained a gun and turned it on LeBoeuf just as Lord returned to the doorway. Lord was shot and defendant was then overcome by LeBoeuf. Lord was taken to a hospital and defendant to the police station where he was put in a cell.
Lt. French was sent to get a statement from defendant in his call. He was given the Miranda warnings and responded that he did not want to say anything without a lawyer present. Almost immediately, he asked for a doctor and fell to the floor. French went to see if the doctor previously called was coming and then returned to the cell block. Defendant said he was sorry he 'fell out' on the officer and after a time of silence, defendant asked for the public defender. French left to advise the desk officer of the request for counsel and then returned to the cell and stood outside. No questions were asked and no conversation took place until, according to French, defendant spoke to him and said:
Defendant, while admitting the truth of the affidavit, claims it is insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant, relying upon Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). He also contends that his statement to French is inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We reject both contentions and affirm the verdicts.
It is true as defendant contends that the information contained in the affidavit originally came from an unknown informer and there is nothing to indicate how she came by the information. However, unlike the situation in Aguilar, the informant here furnished a great deal of detail which in itself furnishes some basis to assess the reliability of the information. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thorp
...A.2d 689 (No. 7233 decided April 30, 1976); State v. St. Germain, 114 N.H. 608, 611-12, 325 A.2d 803, 805 (1974); State v. Collins, 112 N.H. 449, 452, 298 A.2d 742, 744 (1972). The defendant maintains, however, that even if the police had probable cause the evidence still should have been s......
-
State v. Conklin
... ... Miranda v. Arizona, supra at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630; State v. Mitchell, 113 N.H. 542, 543, 311 A.2d 134, 135 (1973). While there is little doubt that the defendant was at all times in custody, his statements were not the product of police interrogation. State v. Collins, 112 N.H. 449, 453, 298 A.2d ... 742, 745 (1972); cert. denied, 415 U.S. 982, 94 S.Ct. 1575, 39 L.Ed.2d 880 (1974) ... The defendant urges that nevertheless they were not voluntarily made, but were induced by fear and the threat of harm, inherent in the charged situation ... ...
-
State v. Spero
...thereby bolstering his apparent credibility. United States v. Belculfine, 508 F.2d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 1974); see State v. Collins, 112 N.H. 449, 452, 298 A.2d 742, 744 (1972). Although the trial court allowed defendant to challenge the search on the grounds that the affidavit submitted by Dep......
- State v. Bell, 6244