State v. Gendron
| Decision Date | 02 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 1791.,1791. |
| Citation | 118 A. 814 |
| Parties | STATE v. GENDRON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Sawyer, Judge.
Robert Gendron was charged by information with the illegal transportation of liquor. Transferred on defendant's exception to the denial of his motion to dismiss. Exception overruled.
Information charging the defendant with the illegal transportation of liquor. Facts agreed. The defendant, who had been con victed in August, 1920, of a violation of the provisions of Laws 1917, c. 147, $ 20, transported a large quantity of Intoxicating liquor from Canada through Vermont to Stewartston, where he was arrested by the federal officers and taken to Vermont. He returned to this state later, and was arraigned on this information, and pleaded not guilty. Later still, he was indicted by the federal court, for the district of Vermont, for transporting the same liquor and pleaded guilty.
Warren W. James, of Berlin, for the State.
Matthew J. Ryan, of Berlin, for defendant.
The question raised by the defendant's exception is the same as it would be if he had been convicted of the Illegal transportation of this liquor in the district court of the district of New Hampshire.
In other words, the question raised by his exception is the same that arises in every case in which both the United States and a state prosecute a person for doing, an act forbidden by the laws of both jurisdictions. Moore v. Illinios, 14 How. 13, 19, 14 L. Ed 306.
In such cases it is no bar to a prosecution in one jurisdiction to show that the defendant has been convicted or acquitted in the other. 16 C. J. 282, § 482; 16 A. L. R. 1232. While this is the general rule, there are few courts which deny its application when the offense charged is the doiug of an act forbidden by the so-called Volstead Act (41 U. S. Stat, at L. 305) and a state prohibitory statute (State v. Smith. 101 Or. 127, 199 Pac. 194, 16 A. L. R. 1220; Wood v. Whitaker, 81 Fla. 653, 89 South. 118; U. S. v. Peterson [D. C.] 268 Fed. 864); but the great weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that the rule which is applied in other cases should be applied in liquor cases (note, 16 A. L. R. 1238):
The defendant confuses the same act with the same offense when he contends that to subject him to a trial in this state is to try him twice for the same offense within the meaning of that term in article 16 of the Bill of Rights. It is true that the liquor he is charged in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gosselin
...of twice being punished for the same act, but rather, forbids twice being tried and convicted for the same offense. State v. Gendron, 80 N.H. 394, 118 A. 814 (1922); State v. Smith, 98 N.H. 149, 95 A.2d 789 (1953); State v. Goodwin, 116 N.H. 37, 351 A.2d 59 (1976). This doctrine is effectua......
-
State v. Hogg, 7923
...In any event, to the extent that Whittemore is in any way inconsistent with our decision in this case, it is overruled. State v. Gendron, 80 N.H. 394, 118 A. 814 (1922) in which the defendant had been convicted rather than acquitted in a federal court, presents an issue which is not raised,......
-
State v. Staples
...we hold that the defendant is properly charged with a second offense. The reasons for the conclusions reached in State v. Gendron, 80 N.H. 394, 118 A. 814 and State v. Costello, 83 N.H. 585, 139 A. 922, relied on by the defendant, were based on statutory language not present here. They were......
-
State v. Costello
...of Keene, for the State. John J. Landers, of Keene, for defendant. PER CURIAM. The defendant is guilty of a second offense. State v. Gendron, 80 N. H. 394, 118 A. 814; State v. Haselton, 81 N. H. 549, 127 A. 923; P. L. c. 402, § Case discharged. ...