State v. Lougee
| Decision Date | 30 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-424,92-424 |
| Citation | 137 N.H. 635,631 A.2d 922 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Kevin LOUGEE. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (Amy Vorenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the State.
Timothy M. Landry, Asst. Appellate Defender, Concord, on brief, for defendant.
The defendant, Kevin Lougee, was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, after a jury trial in the Superior Court (Flynn, J.). On appeal, he argues that the State failed to offer sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he had been previously convicted of driving under the influence. We agree with the defendant and remand.
On October 23, 1990, the defendant was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, under RSA 265:82 (1982) and RSA 265:82-b (1982 & Supp.1990) (amended 1991). At trial, the State offered what was purportedly the defendant's driving record to prove that the defendant had been convicted of driving under the influence once before. The driving record was that of a Kevin Lougee, born on September 9, 1963, and having the operator's license number 09LEK63091. The driving record indicated that Kevin Lougee had been convicted in Nashua for driving under the influence on December 11, 1983. Through the testimony of a department of safety official, the State also established that there are three people named Kevin Lougee who are licensed to drive in New Hampshire. The first is Kevin Roy Lougee, whose record was produced at trial. The second is Kevin Leon Lougee, who was born on September 30, 1955, and lives in Spofford. The third is Kevin J. Lougee, who was born on November 23, 1972, and lives in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.
The trial court specifically instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant of the charged offense it would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been "convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor within the past seven years; namely, on December 11, 1983." The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant appeals arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Kevin Lougee standing trial was the same Kevin Lougee whose driving record was offered into evidence.
The statute establishing penalties for driving under the influence, RSA 265:82-b (1982 & Supp.1990) (amended 1991), "requires proof of prior conviction not as an element of the present charge, but rather as a predicate condition for enhancement of the sentence upon conviction for the present offense." State v. Cardin, 129 N.H. 137, 138, 523 A.2d 105, 106 (1987). However, unless the defendant clearly waives his right to present the issue to the jury, proof of the defendant's prior conviction must be made beyond a reasonable doubt as part of the State's case-in-chief. Id. at 139, 523 A.2d at 106. We will not disturb the defendant's conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence unless "no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Evans, 134 N.H. 378, 383, 594 A.2d 154, 158 (1991) (quotation omitted); State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987).
To sustain the enhanced sentence in this case, the State necessarily had to prove that the Kevin Lougee being tried was the same Kevin Lougee identified in the driving record. "This court has held that, when a person's identity is questioned, sameness of name is insufficient evidence of identity, even when the name is unusual." State v. Ebelt, 121 N.H. 143, 145, 427 A.2d 29, 30 (1981). The State argues that the jury had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ploof
...held, however, that "sameness of name is insufficient evidence of identity, even when the name is unusual." State v. Lougee, 137 N.H. 635, 637, 631 A.2d 922 (1993) (quotation omitted), impliedly overruled on other grounds as recognized by State v. Thompson, 164 N.H. 447, 451, 58 A.3d 661 (2......
-
State v. Thompson
...statute, does not contain such an express requirement, Cardin does not control our analysis.The defendant also cites State v. Lougee, 137 N.H. 635, 631 A.2d 922 (1993), decided after Cardin. In Lougee, we again recognized that "unless the defendant clearly waives his right to present the is......
-
State v. Marcoux
...that the State must prove the existence of the defendant's prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Compare State v. Lougee, 137 N.H. 635, 636, 631 A.2d 922 (1993) (proof of defendant's prior conviction to enhance sentence must be made beyond a reasonable doubt as part of the State's cas......
-
State v. Call, 93-445
...most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will we reverse the conviction. State v. Lougee, 137 N.H. 635, 636-37, 631 A.2d 922, 924 (1993). The State introduced evidence that the victim had been living in a group home for several years and that she takes s......
-
Table of cases
...[59 Ohio Ops.2d 364, 285 N.E.2d 75, 77-78], §9:105.10 State v. Livingston (2003) 206 Ariz. 145, 75 P.3d 1103, §7:20.7 State v. Lougee, 631 A2d 922 (N.H. SupCt, 1993), §9:104.5 State v. Lussier , 171 Vt. 19, 757 A.2d 1017 (2000), §11:101 State v. Magnuson, 210 Mont 401, 682 P2d 1365 (Mont., ......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580—Priors trial not a different enough trial to have invoked double jeopardy rights. State v. Lougee 631 A2d 922 (N.H. SupCt, 1993)—Opinion said, “Without some evidence beyond the defendant’s name to link him to the driving record produced at trial, we h......