State v. Richard
| Decision Date | 20 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5819,5819 |
| Citation | 251 A.2d 326,109 N.H. 322 |
| Parties | STATE v. Peter T. RICHARD. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
George S. Pappagianis, Atty. Gen., and Emile R. Bussiere, County Atty., for the State.
Richard B. Couser, Concord, for the defendant.
Indictment charging the defendant with breaking and entering in the nighttime. Trial by jury before Keller, J., resulted in a verdict of guilty. The defendant was represented at the trial by assigned counsel, who preserved certain exceptions in the course of the trial. Reserved and transferred by the Presiding Justice.
In this court the defendant was represented by new counsel, assigned in this court, who sought leave to withdraw, having found the 'appeal' to be without merit. Counsel however has filed a brief on the defendant's behalf, referring to matters in the record which 'might arguably support the appeal.'
Our examination of the record discloses no error. Contentions relating to the sufficiency of the indictment, and to evidentiary rulings at the trial are without merit. There was evidence that the crime was committed on September 2, 1967, and that on the following day the defendant sold the stolen television set to a friend, who so testified at the trial. There was evidence that after the defendant had been duly advised of his constitutional rights, he 'had nothing to say' concerning the break. There was also evidence that he 'had nothing to say' when his friend had stated in his presence that he, the friend, had acquired the set from the defendant. The jury was immediately instructed to draw no inference of guilt from the fact that the defendant was unwilling to discuss the matter, because he had a constitutional right to remain silent.
The defendant did not testify at the trial, and the jury was further instructed, in this connection, that he had 'a constitutional right to remain silent,' that they should draw no inferences from his failure to testify, and that the fact that he remained silent should not be used against him.
On this record, no question of deprivation of the right to confrontation was presented (State v. Clapp, 94 N.H. 62, 63, 46 A.2d 119) since the person who claimed to have acquired the stolen television set from the defendant testified at the trial and was cross-examined by the defendant. Cf. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476.
The evidence that the defendant's possession of the stolen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fleury, 5691
...arguably support (your) client's appeal.' Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Richard, 109 N.H. 322, 251 A.2d 326 (1969). On June 15, 1970, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the D......
-
State v. Cigic, 92-550
...in a case in which defense counsel sought leave to withdraw, having found the appeal to be without merit. See State v. Richard, 109 N.H. 322, 322, 251 A.2d 326, 327 (1969). Nevertheless, it is our opinion that Anders presents the minimum level of protection to which a criminal is constituti......
-
State v. Kelly
...not choose to testify in his own defense can provide no basis for an adverse inference or comment by the prosecutor. State v. Richard, 109 N.H. 322, 251 A.2d 326 (1969); State v. Fowler, 110 N.H. 110, 261 A.2d 429 (1970). Usually if a witness equally available to both sides is not called to......
-
State v. Taylor
...behavior of the defendant is a proper subject for comment by the prosecutor in his closing argument. See State v. Richard,109 N.H. 322, 323, 251 A.2d 326, 327, 328 (1969). The trial judge offered to give a curative instruction concerning the defendant's failure to testify, and the offer was......