State v. Palumbo, 6427
Decision Date | 29 June 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 6427,6427 |
Citation | 113 N.H. 329,306 A.2d 793 |
Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Ralph J. PALUMBO. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and David W. Hess, Asst. Atty. Gen., by brief, for the State.
Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple, and Robert H. Temple, Dover, by brief, for defendant.
The defendant waived a jury trial and the court found him guilty of passing two counterfeit $10 bills on September 14, 1970, knowing they were counterfeit, with intent to defraud. Transferred by Loughlin, J.
The single issue which the defendant raises on this appeal is whether evidence that some 205 counterfeit bills were discovered in his house in the State of Maine on September 21, 1970, should have been admitted. Following the finding of guilty, the trial court explained its order, stating:
The applicable statute, RSA 581:5, reads as follows: 'If any person shall pass or offer to pass as true, or shall bring into this state, or have in his possession or custody, any false, counterfeited, or altered bank bill or note, . . . knowing the same to be false, counterfeited, or altered, with intent that any person may be defrauded, he shall be imprisoned not more than five years.'
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the law is well established in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972). As this case further points out, the trier may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences, provided that they can be reasonably drawn therefrom. See also L'Esperance v. Sherburne, 85 N.H. 103, 114, 155 A. 203, 209 (1931).
It is also the law that each evidentiary fact relied upon by the State need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. LaFountain, 108 N.H. 219, 231 A.2d 635 (1967). The decisive issue is whether on all the evidence guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Fornier, 103 N.H. 152, 167 A.2d 56 (1961). In the light of these general principles, it seems proper to discuss the facts in the present case in some detail.
On the morning of September 14, 1970, Mrs. Ida McClendon, Dr. David G. Eastman's secretary, received in his office in Somersworth, New Hampshire, two $10 bills from a patient named Chasse in payment of his $15 account. She gave him $5 change and placed the two tens 'together', in accordance with her custom, 'underneath' the ones and twenties in the doctor's cash box, where there was already $40 in 'change'. She received no more payments that morning, but later in the day noticed that she was low on change. She took three tens from the box from 'down underneath' where she thinks she put Chasse's tens, and started out to get change, when the defendant Palumbo entered and gave her two tens in payment of a $15 charge. She placed these tens 'together' in the cash box 'under the ones and the fives, just inside underneath'. She received only one $10 bill during the rest of the afternoon.
At about 4:30-4:45, she took all the money from the cash box to count and date it preparatory to handing it to the doctor. As she explained, She did not notice the serial numbers of these bills and later was unable to identify the two bills introduced in court as State's exhibit No. 2 and No. 3 respectively, as their color was different than the ones she gave to Dr. Eastman. However, it was undisputed that they had been treated chemically, which the trier could reasonably find accounted for the altered color. There is no evidence that she had noticed any other peculiar appearing currency.
Dr. Eastman positively identified the two bills numbered A95202590A and A86392557A respectively, as the ones given to him on the afternoon of September 14 by Mrs. McClendon. He had placed his initials upon them, together with the date when he delivered them to Officer Bolduc at the Somersworth Police Station that same afternoon shortly after receiving them from his secretary. Officer Bolduc also marked the bills and kept them in his possession until they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sands
...alleged conduct. See 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 170, at 317-18 (13th ed. C. Torcia 1972); see also State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 332, 306 A.2d 793, 796 (1973). The prosecution may not, however, discuss or state as facts matters which are not in evidence. State v. Glidden, 122 N.H. at......
-
State v. Kelley
...that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant the finding by a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973). The law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a......
-
State v. Goodwin
...a reasonable doubt on all the essential elements, it may rely on circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence. State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 796 (1973). Based on the evidence the jury could have found that the defendant was not an innocent bystander. The defendant and T......
-
State v. Fielders
...proof facing the State on this issue, therefore, was significantly lower than its burden in the first trial. See State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973) (evidentiary fact relied upon by the State need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Burley, 95 N.H. 7......