State v. Meloon, 78-196
| Decision Date | 14 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-196,78-196 |
| Citation | 119 N.H. 76,397 A.2d 1041 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Thomas E. MELOON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Thomas D. Rath, Atty. Gen. (Peter W. Heed, Asst. Atty. Gen., orally), for the State.
Robert R. Renfro, Portsmouth, by brief and orally, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted of burglary and theft after a jury trial. He excepted to the Trial Court's (Mullavey, J.) denial of his motions to quash and dismiss the burglary indictment, to give requested jury instructions on that indictment, and to set aside the verdict on the theft indictment. He also excepted to the court's admission of certain evidence. We overrule all of the defendant's exceptions.
The defendant argues that the burglary indictment is legally insufficient because it does not allege ownership of the burglarized building. The building was identified in the indictment as "an occupied structure known as Portsmouth Auto Body Garage on Ocean Road." We have stated that State v. Panichas, 107 N.H. 359, 362, 222 A.2d 211, 213 (1966) (citations omitted). The indictment in this case states the elements of burglary using the words of RSA 635:1 and identifies the building. We therefore hold that the indictment is sufficient.
The defendant submitted a request for instructions concerning the issue of his intent to commit a crime at the time he entered the building. This requested instruction commented at length on various purposes for which the defendant might have entered the building which would not constitute intent to commit a crime. During his instructions to the jury, the trial judge fully explained all of the elements of burglary. He twice stated that the State was required to prove that the defendant entered the building with "the purpose to commit a crime therein." It was within the trial court's sound discretion to determine "(w)hether an instruction on a particular issue is necessary to assist the jury in making its verdict." Fusegni v. Portsmouth Housing Authority, 114 N.H. 207, 209, 317 A.2d 580, 582 (1974). We hold that the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction was not an abuse of discretion.
The defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict on the theft indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sands v. Cunningham
...information so that he can prepare for trial". State v. Taylor, 121 N.H. 489, 495, 431 A.2d 775 (1981), quoting State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 77, 397 A.2d 1041 (1979). The Court finds petitioner's indictment sufficient under this Petitioner's first indictment read as follows: That David S. ......
-
State v. Shannon
...'[w]hether an instruction on a particular issue is necessary to assist the jury in making its verdict.' " State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 77, 397 A.2d 1041, 1043 (1979) (quoting Fusegni v. Portsmouth Housing Auth., 114 N.H. 207, 209, 317 A.2d 580, 582 (1974)). We agree with the defendant that......
-
State v. Dennehy
...remains always the same: whether it gives the defendant enough information so that he can prepare for trial.' " State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 77, 397 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1979) (quoting State v. Panichas, 107 N.H. 359, 362, 222 A.2d 211, 213 (1966)). It must describe all of the essential elemen......
-
State v. Taylor
...Generally, "an indictment is sufficient if it uses the words of the proper section of the applicable statute." State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 77, 397 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1979) (quoting State v. Panichas, 107 N.H. 359, 362, 222 A.2d 211, 213 The defendant, however, argues that the indictment in ......