State v. Freije
| Decision Date | 31 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5830,5830 |
| Citation | 109 N.H. 290,249 A.2d 683 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Arthur John FREIJE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
George S. Pappagianis, Atty. Gen., and Henry F. Spaloss, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Armand Capistran, Manchester, for defendant.
Defendant was convicted of six indictments charging the obtaining of goods by false pretenses. RSA 580:1. The evidence presented by the State would have permitted the jury to find that defendant on the dates and at the places alleged in the indictment obtained tires from various gasoline stations by use of a Texaco credit card issued in the name of D. E. Lemoine. The evidence further would have permitted the jury to find that the defendant signed the name of D. E. Lemoine on each charge and that his acts were for the purpose of defrauding the various gasoline stations of the tires so acquired. Defendant's exceptions were reserved and transferred by the Trial Court, (Dunfey J.).
Prior to trial defendant moved to have each indictment tried separately and excepted to the order of the court consolidating them for trial.
An order consolidating indictments for trial is within the province of the Trial Court and will not be reversed here unless it appears the order prejudiced defendant. The desirability of consolidation is apparent when the crimes charged are related or apparently part of a common scheme or plan. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a). The defendant in such cases cannot claim prejudice, since evidence of the other charges would have been admissible in the trial of any one. State v. Garceau, 108 N.H. 209, 231 A.2d 625. State v. Story, 97 N.H. 141, 83 A.2d 142 is a prime example of consolidation of indictments and joinder of trials. In the Story case two defendants were tried on three indictments against each containing numerous counts all claimed to be part of a scheme to defraud the state. In the present case the defendant's indictments all related to his use of a particular credit card and a false name to obtain fifteen tires in Manchester and Bedford, New Hampshire, within a period of two months. The order of consolidation by the Trial Court was desirable and proper under the circumstances of this case.
Defendant's second exception relates to the admission into evidence of certain credit slips. An examination of the record and the exhibits admitted indicate that they were properly admitted. All of the credit slips were identified by the gasoline station attendant who prepared them in the regular course of business, and in each case the attendant identified the defendant as the signer of the individual slip. The identification by the witnesses of defendant's signature made them admissible, but had they been records prepared by the witnesses without the signature of the defendant the Trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ramos
...rules regarding joinder of criminal offenses for trial with approval. Whitney, 125 N.H. at 639, 484 A.2d 1158; State v. Freije, 109 N.H. 290, 291, 249 A.2d 683 (1969). Moreover, our traditional test, which focuses upon whether the evidence in support of each offense was "brief, simple and u......
-
State v. Fennelly
...as evidence of a common scheme or plan, it could be considered probative of the defendant's mental state. See State v. Freije, 109 N.H. 290, 291, 249 A.2d 683, 684 (1969). The defendant has argued that the statute under which he was convicted, RSA 637:7, is unconstitutionally vague and that......
-
State v. Bergmann, 90-162
...part of a common scheme or plan.' " State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984) (quoting State v. Freije, 109 N.H. 290, 291, 249 A.2d 683, 684 (1969)). He contends that the two incidents at issue are neither related, nor part of a common scheme or plan. This argument is ......
-
State v. Winders
...court's ruling unless it is shown that the defendant's right to a fair trial was jeopardized by non-severance. State v. Freije, 109 N.H. 290, 291, 249 A.2d 683, 684 (1969). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to sever the two burglary charges since the de......