State v. Fagin

• Decision Date: 16 March 1888
• Citation: 64 N.H. 431,14 A. 727
• Parties: STATE v. FAGIN.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

14 A. 727

64 N.H. 431

STATE

v. FAGIN.¹

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

March 16, 1888.

Indictment under Gen. Laws, c. 109, § 15, for keeping lager-beer for sale, as a "subsequent offense." The defendant excepted to the admission of the record showing a judgment rendered against him on an indictment for a like offense to which he had pleaded nolo contendere. The question whether the statute of limitations is applicable to evidence of the previous offense was raised in this case, and disposed of by the judgment in State v. Adams, 13 Atl. Rep. 785, (decided this term, in this county.)

H. Robinson, for defendant. N. E. Martin, for the State.

DOE, C. J. We need not inquire whether the defendant's plea of nolo contendere would be admissible evidence against him in a suit between him and some other party than the state. In a suit brought against him by his lessor for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of covenant, the plaintiff would not be bound by the defendant's acquittal in a criminal prosecution for the same act. In this case the parties are the same as in the case in which the judgment was rendered; and the decisive thing is not the former plea, but the former judgment. The judgment recovered by the state is not a compromise in the sense of being something less than a conviction. It could have been rendered on no other ground than the defendant's guilt. It would be invalid if the record showed that he was not guilty, or that the question of his guilt had not been determined against him by plea or by proof. His guilt was an implied confession of the offense charged. His guilt was a "necessary legal inference from the implied confession." Com. v. Horton, 9 Pick. 206, 208. Between him and the state it is not material whether he was guilty, or said something from which the law necessarily inferred his guilt. Whatever the form or substance of his plea, the judgment rendered against him is valid; and, being valid, it is conclusive between these parties. Between them its effect does not depend upon the question whether he admitted his guilt or denied it, or whether his confession was express or implied. Exceptions overruled.

ALLEN, J., did not sit. The others concurred.

1 Reported by W. S. Ladd, official reporter of the New Hampshire supreme court.