State v. Hoyt
| Decision Date | 30 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 6530,6530 |
| Citation | 319 A.2d 286,114 N.H. 256 |
| Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Ray Allen HOYT. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Thomas D. Rath, Asst. Atty. Gen., by brief, for the State.
Alfred Catalfo, Jr. and Daniel M. Cappiello, Dover, by brief, for defendant.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict of guilty upon a trial under an indictment charging the defendant, having been convicted of a felony, with possession of a pistol in violation of RSA 159:3. The defendant claims that the indictment charges two separate and distinct offenses, is duplicitous and 'bad for uncertainty.' State v. Gary, 36 N.H. 359, 361-362 (1858); State v. Mealey, 100 N.H. 228, 122 A.2d 921 (1956).
We do not believe that the record sustains his position. The indictment, describing a felony, states that the defendant did 'feloniously have in his possession one Ruger 22 cal. automatic pistol, serial No. 10-25577, which was concealed on his person on the 1st of May, 1971 while on Main Street in Farmington, when said Ray Allen Hoyt having been convicted of a felony on 2/6/64 in Strafford County Superior Court.' RSA 159:3, in force at the time of the alleged offense, so far as material, provides: 'No . . . person who has been convicted of a felony against the person or property of another, shall own or have in his possession or under his control a pistol or revolver, except as hereinafter provided.'
The defendant asserts that the indictment accuses him of an offense not only under RSA 159:3 but also under RSA 159:4 (Supp.1972). The pertinent portions of section 4 in force at the time of the alleged offense describe a misdemeanor as follows: RSA 159:4 (Supp.1972). It appears to us that the indictment clearly and fully charges an offense under section 3 of the statute, but not under section 4. It states that the defendant, having been convicted of felony, thereafter did 'have in his possession' and under his control a pistol 'concealed on his person on the 1st of May, 1971' on the Main Street in Farmington. Every element of the offense under section 3 is alleged. On the other hand, there would have been no need to have charged the defendant with being a convicted felon if the alleged offense was a violation of section 4, nor would there have been occasion for a grand jury indictment for the misdemeanor which section 4 describes. RSA 601:1.
However, it would have been necessary under section 4 to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gosselin
...former; proof that the individual is a convicted felon is necessary for conviction under the former but not the latter. State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 319 A.2d 286 (1974). However, defendant argues that because the two charges concern defendant's possession of the same gun at the same time in......
-
State v. Booton, 6863
...a defendant of the factual basis of the alleged offense with enough specificity so that he can prepare for trial. State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 257, 319 A.2d 286, 287 (1974); State v. Greenwood, 113 N.H. 625, 626, 312 A.2d 695, 696 (1973); State v. Strescino, 106 N.H. H. 554, 557, 215 A.2d 7......
-
State v. Belkner, s. 7643-7645
...the court did not err in denying Belkner's motion to quash. State v. O'Neill, 105 N.H. 15, 191 A.2d 528 (1963); State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 319 A.2d 286 (1974). The fact that defendant was charged in the conjunctive while the statute is phrased in the disjunctive does not invalidate the in......
-
State v. Wright, 83-439
...in one count. R. McNamara, 1 New Hampshire Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 315, at 199 (1980); see State v. Hoyt, 114 N.H. 256, 257, 319 A.2d 286, 287 (1974). The duplicitousness runs afoul of the requirement that an indictment inform a defendant of the charge he must meet, so t......