State v. Ruelke

Decision Date30 November 1976
Docket NumberNo. 7382,7382
PartiesSTATE of New Hampshire v. Peter R. RUELKE.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

David H. Souter, Atty. Gen. and Peter W. Heed, Concord, attorney for the State.

Goodnow, Arwe, Ayer & Prigge, and Eric R. Gardner, Keene, for defendant.

GRIMES, Justice.

Defendant was charged with possession of in excess of a pound of marijuana and with conspiring with one Dennis McAlary to sell marijuana. He was found guilty of conspiring and of the lesser offense of knowingly being present where a controlled drug was kept but did not appeal the latter conviction. His motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the Butler farm was denied subject to his exceptions. During the trial certain hearsay evidence was introduced subject to his exceptions. All questions of law raised by his exceptions were transferred by King, J.

The search warrant in issue was obtained as a result of an affidavit based on information obtained from a Dana Lawrence whose Volkswagon bus was stopped and searched by an Officer Byrnes. Defendant first contends that the evidence obtained from Lawrence and his van was the result of an illegal stop and search and therefore not only could not be used in evidence but also could not be used as a basis for obtaining the warrant to search the Butler farm, thereby making inadmissible the evidence obtained as a result of that search and requiring the granting of his motion to suppress.

Although because he was present when the search of the Butler farm was made, he has standing to contest the validity of that search (Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1961)), he has no standing to complain about the stopping of Lawrence or of the search of Lawrence's van or the use of information obtained from him. He was not present, did not own the van or anything which was seized and no rights of his were violated by the stop, the search or the questioning. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Having no standing to complain about any possible violation of Lawrence's rights, he cannot prevent the use of the evidence thus obtained to support the issuance of the warrant to search the Butler farm, and the motion to suppress was properly denied.

Dana Lawrence was called as a witness by the State. He testified that he purchased the marijuana from McAlary at the Butler farm. Although he stated that the defendant and others were present while they tested the drug by smoking it, he did not otherwise implicate defendant in the sale. After Lawrence left the court, but still under subpoena, the prosecution called Officer Byrnes as a witness and asked 'what Lawrence related to you as to where he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • State v. Shannon
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1984
    ...The tendency of the officer's statements to prejudice the jury as to the defendant's guilt is without doubt. State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 694, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976); see State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179, 385 A.2d 108, 110 (1978). Accordingly, we conclude that the admission of the ......
  • State v. Settle
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1982
    ...adopted by this court in State v. Crump, 107 N.H. 62, 65, 217 A.2d 183, 186 (1966), and more recently affirmed in State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 693, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976), constitutes the standard by which searches must be judged or whether the "legitimate expectation of privacy" doctri......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1996
    ...but whether it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible evidence did not affect the verdict." State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 694, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976). In other words, the question is "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributabl......
  • State v. Bassett, 93-009
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1995
    ...consideration of the record in this case, I would hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 694, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT