State v. McNally
Decision Date | 14 October 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-424,81-424 |
Citation | 122 N.H. 892,451 A.2d 1305 |
Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Michael McNALLY. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen. (Marc R. Scheer, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief and orally), for the State.
DiMento & Sullivan, Boston, Mass. and Ross & Davis, Manchester (Richard B. Michaud, Boston, Mass., on the brief and Thomas C. Cameron and Clifford J. Ross, Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The issue in this case is whether a defendant who has been convicted of larceny in Massachusetts may subsequently be prosecuted in New Hampshire under RSA 637:7 for retaining the same property which he stole in Massachusetts. We hold that New Hampshire is not barred from prosecuting the defendant.
On June 12, 1981, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts charged the defendant, Michael McNally, with larceny of air-carbide bits in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Annotated chapter 266, section 30 (West 1970). The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge on August 12, 1981, in district court at Hingham, Massachusetts. On July 20, 1981, prior to his guilty plea in the Massachusetts case, the defendant was indicted in New Hampshire for the theft crime of retaining stolen property. RSA 637:7 I. The stolen property consisted of the same air-carbide bits which the defendant was convicted of stealing in Massachusetts. He moved to dismiss the New Hampshire indictment on the grounds that it violated his rights to due process of law and to be protected from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. See N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 16; U.S. Const. amend. V; id. amend. XIV, § 1. The Superior Court (Bean, J.) concluded that neither the double jeopardy nor due process provisions of the New Hampshire or United States Constitutions would be offended by the New Hampshire prosecution for retaining stolen property. This interlocutory appeal followed.
The double jeopardy protection afforded by the Federal and State Constitutions prohibits a citizen from being convicted twice for the same offense. State v. Heinz, 119 N.H. 717, 720, 407 A.2d 814, 816 (1979); State v. Gosselin, 117 N.H. 115, 118, 370 A.2d 264, 267 (1977). Jeopardy will not attach if the second offense is different in either law or fact. State v. Heinz, 117 N.H. at 720, 407 A.2d at 816. This is to be distinguished from the protection our State Constitution offers against the mere duplication of trials in two jurisdictions for the same offense. State v. Hagg, 118 N.H. 262, 266, 385 A.2d 844, 846 (1978); N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 16. But cf. Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195-96, 79 S.Ct. 666, 671, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959) ( ). We believe the New Hampshire offense of retaining stolen property is distinguishable both in law and in fact from the Massachusetts larceny offense.
In State v. Heinz, we determined that "two statutes with overlapping subject matter do not necessarily reflect the same interests and define the same offense in law." 119 N.H. at 720, 407 A.2d at 816. Instead, our analysis must focus on the actual interests and policies of each jurisdiction. Id. at 721, 407 A.2d at 816.
The defendant was charged with and convicted of larceny in Massachusetts; he has been indicted in this State under RSA 637:7 for retention of stolen property. Even though the statute is captioned "Receiving Stolen Property," we have construed this statute as punishing anyone who retains stolen property. State v. Scione, 118 N.H. 922, 923, 395 A.2d 1252, 1252 (1978). Bean, J., the trial judge in this case, cogently articulated the policy differences between the two statutes in his order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the New Hampshire indictment:
We agree with the State that punishing the retention of stolen property serves the additional policy of preventing and deterring criminals from using this State as a safe haven to store or dispose of stolen property with impunity.
The defendant seeks to avoid prosecution in this State for retaining stolen property by a literal reading of RSA 637:1. That statute declares that "[c]onduct denominated theft in this chapter constitutes a single offense embracing the separate offenses such as those heretofore known as larceny ... [and] receiving stolen property." The statute continues, however: "An accusation of theft may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be theft under this chapter, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment or information." In addition to the plain language of the statute, the legislative history evinces a policy of facilitating prosecutions, rather than of making it more difficult to prosecute an individual for independent acts of theft. When the codification of New Hampshire's criminal laws was proposed, the report accompanying it stated that "[t]he important function of this section is to declare that variances between theft charged in one form and proved in another are no longer important." Report of Commission to Recommend Codification of Criminal Laws § 582.1 comment at 60 (1969).
The comments to section 223.1 of the Model Penal Code, from which RSA 637:1 derives, also support the prosecution-facilitating policy behind the consolidation statute:
Model Penal Code § 223.1 comment 2(b), at 133 (1962). Specifically discussed in these comments is the effect of consolidating the offenses of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Edwards
...property would require a different analysis from that of receiving stolen property. 15. The state urges us to consider State v. McNally, 122 N.H. 892, 451 A.2d 1305 (1982), for the proposition that the legislative purpose of unlawfully taking property differs from that of unlawfully retaini......
-
State v. Chaisson, 81-429
...with theft and receiving the same stolen property from himself, State v. Larkin, 49 N.H. 39, 43 (1869). But cf. State v. McNally, 122 N.H. 892, ---, 451 A.2d 1305, 1307 (decided October 14, 1982) (defendant may be convicted of larceny and retention of stolen property). However, conspiracy t......
-
Appeal of Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
... ... Smith, Atty. Gen. (Bruce E. Mohl, attorney, and F. Joseph Gentili, consumer advocate, on brief and orally), for the State and the New Hampshire Consumer Advocate ... Douglas I. Foy and Alan Wilson, Boston, Mass., for the Conservation Law Foundation of ... ...
-
Petition of Clark
... ... Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen. (Peter T. Foley, attorney, Concord, on brief and orally), for the State ... BROCK, Justice ... This is a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the termination of the plaintiffs' ... ...