State v. Titus
| Decision Date | 30 June 1966 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Stillman TITUS. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
George S. Pappagianis, Atty. Gen. (by brief and orally), for the State of New Hampshire.
Upton, Sanders & Upton, Concord (Gilbert Upton, Concord, orally), for defendant.
Indictment charging the defendant with possession and control of narcotic drugs on October 22, 1963, in violation of RSA 318-A:2. The defendant pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. At the close of the testimony of the complaining witnesses, the defendant moved to exclude all evidence obtained under a search warrant, upon the ground that the complaint and the supporting evidence before the magistrate '* * * did not provide sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause under the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
A further ground for his motion was that the search '* * * was outside the jurisdiction of the officer conducting it * * *.'
The trial in this case was held on June 18, 1964, and the defendant having made his motions after the testimony of the State's witness, the case was transferred without a ruling by Loughlin, J. In the reserved case, which was drawn up and signed by the Court on September 9, 1964, the two questions transferred were whether the evidence obtained on the search should have been excluded because (1) the complaint 'did not provide a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause by the magistrate under the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States' and whether the evidence should have been excluded because (2) 'Lieutenant Hinds as an officer of the Concord Police Department, had no authority to make a search of premises situated outside of Concord, New Hampshire, even though accompanied by officers of the New Hampshire State Police * * *.'
On January 26, 1965, the defendant's attorney, after stating that he was enclosing copies of his brief, wrote the Clerk of the Supreme Court as follows: As a result, the only issue briefed or argued before us on February 2, 1965, was that of the sufficiency of the complaint upon which the magistrate issued the search warrant. We held that the complaint was proper and that the warrant was validly issued. State v. Titus, 106 N.H. 219, 212 A.2d 458, decided March 31, 1965. On April 19, 1965, the defendant's motion for a rehearing was denied.
We remanded the case to the Trial Court, and upon a further hearing at which the evidence was admitted, again subject to the defendant's exception, he was found guilty. At this trial, the defendant introduced the testimony of Sergeant Paul A. Doyon of the New Hampshire State Police, who had participated in the search.
The defendant now seeks to raise the same issue as to the validity of the search warrant, as was argued before us at the first transfer. It is elementary, and defendant's counsel agrees, that ordinarily he would be foreclosed from doing so. In the present case, he again urges that under decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the warrant in invalid. He again relies upon Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 and Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503, upon which he based his former argument that the warrant was invalid upon the previous transfer. In order that every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Campbell
...United States (5 Cir.) 370 F.2d 8, 10; People v. schnitzler, 18 N.Y.2d 457, 460, 276 N.Y.S.2d 616, 223 N.E.2d 28, 30; State v. Titus, 107 N.H. 215, 217, 220 A.2d 154, 156; State v. Lampson, Iowa, 149 N.W.2d 116; cf. Commonwealth v. Penta, Mass., 225 N.E.2d 58.6 Our statutes, supra footnote ......
-
Oliver v. State, 6 Div. 12
...cause. For cases in other jurisdictions in accord with this view see Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143, 147 S.E.2d 666; State v. Titus, 107 N.H. 215, 220 A.2d 154; State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 262, 216 A.2d The following facts were before the magistrate: 1. That a few minutes ago an amount of ma......
-
State v. Cadigan
...probable cause. State v. Oliveri, 1968, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 688; State v. Van Meter, 1968, 7 Ariz.App., 422, 440 P.2d 58; State v. Titus, 1966, 107 N.H. 215, 220 A.2d 154; Commonwealth v. Crawley, 1966, 209 Pa.Super. 70, 223 A.2d 885. Federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings questioning the......
-
State v. Doe
...under oath before the warrant was issued may, of course, be considered along with that contained in the affidavit. State v. Titus, 107 N.H. 215, 220 A.2d 154 (1966); State v. Salsman, 112 N.H. 138, 290 A.2d 618 (1972); State v. Moreau, 113 N.H. 303, 306 A.2d 764 (1973). The warrant provides......