State v. Novosel, 7189
| Decision Date | 05 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7189,7189 |
| Citation | 115 N.H. 302,339 A.2d 16 |
| Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Viktor NOVOSEL. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Robert V. Johnson, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., by brief for the State.
Carroll F. Jones and Leonard J. Merski, Concord, by brief for defendant.
The main issues in this second-degree murder case are (1) the constitutionality of RSA 651:8 and 9 which permit the grand jury to omit to indict for the reason of insanity, and in such case allow the court, after finding it to be dangerous for defendant to go at large, to commit him to the prison or the State hospital for life unless sooner released or transferred; and (2) whether, when there is a question of insanity of the defendant, the trial court has discretion to order a bifurcated trial.
Defendant in January 1975 was indicted for second-degree murder alleged to have been committed by means of firing a pistol on December 24, 1974. The State was granted a pre-trial psychiatric examination, and in response to the State's motion defendant's counsel filed notice of intent to rely on the defense of insanity as well as other defenses in accordance with Superior Court Rules 90-C and -D. RSA 628:2. The question of competency to stand trial was also raised by the State, but neither side moved for a hearing on that issue and the trial court decided not to conduct a hearing sua sponte. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).
Defense counsel informed the trial court that defendant did not want to raise insanity as a defense and therefore had not signed the notice of intent filed by counsel. This notice has now been withdrawn. State's counsel indicated that the State would produce evidence of insanity at the trial and the defense moved for a bifurcated trial which the State opposed.
The State moved that the grand jury be recalled so that it could determine whether, in view of presently available evidence, it would omit to indict by reason of insanity under RSA 651:8. Defense counsel objected and raised the question of the constitutionality of RSA 651:8 and 9.
All questions of law raised by the various motions of the parties were reserved and transferred without ruling by Keller, C.J.
The trial court in its discretion has the authority to reconvene the grand jury as the State requests. If the grand jury should omit to find an indictment for the reason of insanity or mental derangement, and so certify to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Novosel
...court. State v. Gregoire, 118 N.H. 140, 384 A.2d 132 (1978); Novosel v. Helgemoe, 118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124 (1978); State v. Novosel, 115 N.H. 302, 339 A.2d 16 (1975). On December 24, 1974, the defendant went to the home of George and Helen Morrison in search of his former wife and his chi......
-
Kanteles v. Wheelock
...Supreme Court held NH RSA 651:8 and 9 constitutional because of the due process requirements at the committal hearing. State v. Novosel, 115 N.H. 302, 339 A.2d 16 (1975). The case which the New Hampshire Supreme Court decided in Novosel raised challenges to the statutory scheme of NH RSA 65......
-
Sanchez v. State
...Rhodes v. State, supra, at 727. See also People v. Yukl, 83 Misc.2d 364, 372 N.Y.S.2d 313, 316-317 (1975); and State v. Novosel, 115 N.H. 302, 339 A.2d 16, 17 (1975). In other words, the language of § 7-242.5(a), supra, may permit admission of evidence during the first procedural phase rela......
-
Novosel v. Helgemoe
...had the discretionary authority to reconvene the grand jury, and that the statutes challenged were constitutional. State v. Novosel, 115 N.H. 302, 339 A.2d 16 (1975). Following that decision on June 9, 1975, the grand jury was recalled. Under the provisions of RSA 651:8 it omitted to return......