State v. Small
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | DOE, C. J. |
| Citation | 14 A. 727,64 N.H. 491 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMALL. |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1888 |
64 N.H. 491
STATE
v.
SMALL.1
Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.
March 16, 1888.
Indictment under Gen. Laws, c. 109, § 13, for keeping spirituous liquor for sale, with an averment that the defendant "has previously been convicted of a violation of section thirteen of chapter 109 of the General Laws, in regard to the keeping for sale of spirituous liquor." The question was reserved whether the indictment sufficiently describes a "subsequent offense." Other questions raised in this ease were decided in State v. Fagin, infra, and State v. Adams, 13 Atl. Rep. 785.
J. H. Dudley, for the State.
Aldrich & Remick, for defendant.
Gen. Laws, c. 109, § 23, is in conflict with article 15 of the bill of rights. Com. v. Harrington, 130 Mass. 35.
DOE, C. J. The provision of Gen. Laws, c. 109, § 23, that the record of a former conviction need not be "set forth particularly" in an indictment for a second offense, and that "it shall be sufficient to allege briefly that such person has been convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter, as the case may be," implies that there must be a statement of the record if it is relied on with a view of charging the defendant with the higher penalty. Tuttle v. Com., 2 Gray, 505, 507. The judgment need not be set forth literally; but he is entitled to a description that will enable him to find the record, to apply for a correction or reversal, and to make preparation for a trial of the question whether he is the convict. A construction less favorable to him would not be consistent with his constitutional right. The averment, giving him no information of the time, court, or county in which the judgment was rendered, is insufficient. The indictment is good, but not for a subsequent offense. Case discharged.
BINGHAM, J., did not sit. The others concurred.
---------------
Notes:
1 Reported by W. S. Ladd, official reporter of the New Hampshire supreme court.
---------------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goldstrohm, (No. 3662.)
...Robinson, 39 Me. 150. Technical accuracy in this respect is not requiredl State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Small, 64 N. H. 491, 14 Atl. 727. Upon the second point of challenge we hold the indictment also good beyond question, although it does depart from the old for......
-
State v. Cook
...make it so defective in form or substance that it would not support a conviction, State v. Adams, 64 N.H. 440, 13 A. 785; State v. Small, 64 N.H. 491, 14 A. 727, and prevent the defendant from being placed in jeopardy by a trial thereon. State v. Sherburne, 58 N.H. 535; State v. Liptzer, 90......
-
State v. Savage, (No. 3944.)
...Hoilman, 82 W. Va. 98, 95 S. E. 591; State v. Goldstrohm, 99 S. E. 248; State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Small, 64 N. H. 491, 14 Atl. 727. The requirement for directness and particularity in describing the former conviction and sentence as a result of the proceeding......
-
State v. Dutch Ioldstroiim.
...Robinson, 39 [84 W.Va. 133] Me. 1.50. Technical accuracy in this respect is not required. State v. Wenhvorlh, 65 Me. 234; State v. Small, 64 N. H. 491. Upon the second point of challenge we hold the indictment also good beyond question, although it does depart from the old forms in that it ......
-
State v. Goldstrohm
...Robinson, 39 Me. 150. Technical accuracy in this respect is not requiredl State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Small, 64 N. H. 491, 14 Atl. 727. Upon the second point of challenge we hold the indictment also good beyond question, although it does depart from the old for......
-
State v. Cook
...not make it so defective in form or substance that it would not support a conviction, State v. Adams, 64 N.H. 440, 13 A. 785; State v. Small, 64 N.H. 491, 14 A. 727, and prevent the defendant from being placed in jeopardy by a trial thereon. State v. Sherburne, 58 N.H. 535; State v. Liptzer......
-
State v. Savage
...State v. Hoilman 82 W.Va. 98, 95 S.E. 591; State v. Goldstrohm, 99 S.E. 248; State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Small, 64 N.H. 491, 14 A. 727. requirement for directness and particularity in describing the former conviction and sentence as a result of the proceedings ......
-
State v. Savage, (No. 3944.)
...v. Hoilman, 82 W. Va. 98, 95 S. E. 591; State v. Goldstrohm, 99 S. E. 248; State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234, 20 Am. Rep. 688; State v. Small, 64 N. H. 491, 14 Atl. 727. The requirement for directness and particularity in describing the former conviction and sentence as a result of the proceed......