State v. Gobin
| Decision Date | 02 May 1950 |
| Citation | 73 A.2d 430,96 N.H. 220 |
| Parties | STATE v. GOBIN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William L. Phinney, Attorney General and Wyman P. Boynton, County Solictor, Portsmouth, for the State.
Oliver Gobin, pro se.
The main question in this appeal is whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant the jury in finding the defendant guilty of larceny. The defendant did not testify and the only evidence submitted in his behalf was the following statement made to the jury by his attorney.
On February 8, 1949 the defendant and his son, Leo Gobin, informed the latter's wife who was called as a state's witness that they were going in the defendant's automobile to Hudson, New Hampshire, to purchase livestock. That evening at 8:15 P.M. defendant's automobile was parked outside the gasoline station of Charles Woodbury and while a young man, later identified as Leo Gobin, was in the rest room, the automobile was driven near a tire rack outside the show window of the station. Later the attendant at the station saw Leo 'stoop down beside the tire rack' and then The tire was placed in the car. The attendant made a note that the automobile had Massachusetts registration 733954 and notified the police. The attendant was unable to identify the 'other person' as the defendant because he 'didn't see him except in the back of the car.' The defendant was identified by the operator of another service station one mile away as the man who called at that station at 8:30 P.M. the same evening and 'inquired about directions.'
A subsequent check disclosed that two 700 X 15 four ply Mobile Deluxe tires were missing from the Woodbury station and that Massachusetts registration 733954 was assigned to the defendant. The next morning the Massachusetts state police obtained a search warrant and discovered two 700 X 15 four ply Mobile Deluxe tires at the place occupied by the defendant in Holden, Massachusetts.
It is a well-established rule of criminal law in this state that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant the finding by a jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. White, 91 N.H. 109, 113, 14 A.2d 253; State v. Ellard, 95 N.H. 217, 60 A.2d 461. The absence of a confession or the lack of an eyewitness to the commission of the crime is not fatal, State v. Thorp, 86 N.H. 501, 510, 171 A. 633, 172 A. 879, where the identity of the offender and his opportunity to commit the proven crime can be established beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Burley, 95 N.H. 77, 57 A.2d 618. Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily inferior to direct testimony and there are many recorded instances where it has proven to be of superior accuracy in cases involving identification of criminal offenders. Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof., 3d Ed., §§ 250-254. Safeguards against erroneous identification, 14 N.Y.Judicial Council Rep. pp. 229-268 (1948); Wentworth and Wilder....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carpentino
...one case where the statute would appear to have been implicated, we reached a decision without even mentioning it. In State v. Gobin, 96 N.H. 220, 223, 73 A.2d 430 (1950), which dealt primarily with an unrelated question on appeal, we held in the final sentence of the opinion that an amendm......
-
State v. Story
...counts in the indictments against him because he aided and protected Cote in those transactions with a fraudulent intent. State v. Gobin, 96 N.H. 220, 222, 73 A.2d 430; State v. Del Bianco, 96 N.H. 436, 438, 78 A.2d 519. Respondents' motions to dismiss the various indictments were therefore......
-
State v. Fuller
...in some cases "clearly indicate[d] that the Legislature was acting prospectively and not retroactively"). But cf. State v. Gobin, 96 N.H. 220, 222–23, 73 A.2d 430 (1950) (applying amendment that was effective in April to defendant who committed the crime in February, but was tried in May). ......
-
State v. Wills
...to an inference that it was made with intent to commit larceny but there is no presumption cast on the defendant. See State v. Gobin, 96 N.H. 220, 222, 73 A.2d 430. The defendant's counsel contends tht the circumstances surrounding his that the circumstances surrounding his dwelling are mor......