State v. Goff, 78-111

• Decision Date: 30 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-111,78-111
• Citation: 118 N.H. 724,393 A.2d 562
• Parties: The STATE of New Hampshire v. Robert C. GOFF.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 562

393 A.2d 562

118 N.H. 724

The STATE of New Hampshire v. Robert C. GOFF.

No. 78-111.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Oct. 30, 1978.

Thomas D. Rath, Atty. Gen. (Edward N. Damon, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for the State.

Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple, Dover (Ronald B. Willoughby, Dover, on brief), for defendant.

DOUGLAS, Justice.

We are called upon to determine whether a New Hampshire peace officer has authority to issue valid summonses while out of state, and whether a nonresident defendant is precluded from appealing a trial court's denial of a motion to quash such summonses when he submits to the trial court's jurisdiction for a trial on the merits. We answer both questions in the negative and order the summonses against the defendant quashed and the convictions set aside.

The defendant was convicted of reckless operation of a motor vehicle, RSA 262-A:61 (1977), and violation of a Rochester City Ordinance, Section XVI (unnecessary noise). We summarized the facts in an earlier opinion which remanded the case to the trial court for an agreed statement of facts or an evidentiary hearing to enable us to resolve the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant's submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. State v. Goff, 117 N.H. ---, 379 A.2d 206 (1977). The hearing on remand failed to resolve adequately the factual dispute between the trial court and defense counsel, thereby depriving this court of the necessary record for judicious appellate review. Thus, we refrain from deciding the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant's submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. We therefore reserve judgment on the present validity in this State of the traditional doctrine that a court's jurisdiction is unaffected even though a defendant has been improperly brought before it. See State v. Keating, 108 N.H. 402, 236 A.2d 684 (1967); State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 207 A.2d 447 (1965). Nevertheless, we find no barrier to considering the defendant's exception to the trial court's denial of his motion to quash the summonses.

A New Hampshire State police officer observed the defendant commit a traffic offense in Rochester, New Hampshire. A high-speed chase ensued, during which the defendant fled into Maine. The officer followed the defendant into Maine and issued him two summonses to appear in Rochester District Court.

Defense counsel entered a special appearance without the defendant present and moved to quash the summonses, arguing that the police officer had been without authority to issue them in a foreign State. The Trial Court (Cooper, J.) denied the motion and reserved and transferred the defendant's exceptions to that ruling to this court. He then strongly urged defense counsel to submit his client to a trial on the merits and appeal the denial of the motion to quash the summonses only upon being found guilty. The trial court's advice was consistent with our subsequent expression of policy discouraging transfers to this court of interlocutory matters in misdemeanor or violation cases from district or municipal courts except in exceptional circumstances. State v. Doyle, 117 N.H. ---, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977). See also State v. Varney, 117 N.H. 163, 370 A.2d 289 (1977).

In conformance with the trial court's request, defense counsel subsequently produced the defendant for a trial on the merits, although the record shows that he carefully noted his exception to the court's denial of the motion to quash the summonses, and that the court specifically permitted him to raise the issue to this court after trial. The trial court found the defendant guilty and appeal was taken. This court has held that a defendant's exception to a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is preserved for this court's review even though a final judgment has been rendered against the defendant on the merits. Merrimack Paving Co. v. Southwick, 106 N.H. 138, 207 A.2d 438 (1965). Therefore, the issue of the validity of the summonses issued to the defendant is properly one for our determination.

The State places strong emphasis on a recent Maine Supreme Court decision that overruled a defendant's exception to the trial court's assumption of jurisdiction where the state had compelled defendant's presence without proper process. See State v. Stone, 294 A.2d 683 (Me.1972). The State ignores, however, the crucial distinction between that case and the present case. In Stone, there was no timely exception to the court's jurisdiction before the defendants submitted to a trial on the merits. The personal jurisdiction issue was thereby waived. State v. Stone, supra at 693. In the present case, defense counsel made a special appearance to protest the trial court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and submitted his client for a trial on the merits only after a request from the bench. The defendant...