White v. Hancock
| Decision Date | 20 October 1964 |
| Citation | 207 A.2d 435,106 N.H. 172 |
| Parties | Charles WHITE v. Parker L. HANCOCK, Warden, et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Charles White (by brief) pro se.
These proceedings belong to a series of petitions and motions for a new trial filed by the plaintiff since his conviction by a jury of the offenses of aggravated assault, kidnapping and robbery was affirmed by this court on December 3, 1963. State v. White, 105 N.H. 159, 196 A.2d 33.
In May 1964, the plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 12, 1964. 379 U.S. 854, 85 S.Ct. 103, 13 L.Ed.2d 57. Following this, on October 20, 1964, the plaintiff petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus with a request that it be 'returnable within 10 days.' On October 25, five days later, he advised this court as follows: 'If no action is taken or contemplated by the Court by Wednesday, October 28, I will take the action into Federal District Court.' On November 3, 1964, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After a full hearing, held on December 7, at which the plaintiff appeared pro se and testified, the petition was dismissed on December 21, 1964. The grounds for the dismissal were that the plaintiff has not exhausted his remedies in the State Court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In his present petition he has asked, and we are granting his request, that all the allegations which he placed before the District Court be considered together with two others set out in his petition of October 20, 1964 and its supplement filed January 4, 1965, in this court. All these allegations have been before us in effect in the numerous petitions and motions which he has previously filed and which we have denied. We have now re-examined all of them and find them to be without substance. However, in the light of recent United States Supreme Court decisions, we deem it advisable to discuss his claim that he was deprived of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as 'made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.' Gideon v. Wainwright, 373 U.S. 335, 342, 83 S.Ct. 792, 795, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.
The basis of his claim is that the Trial Court erroneously admitted his oral confession found by the Court as a preliminary matter to have been voluntary. He relies upon the authority of Escobedo v. Ill., 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 and Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246, to sustain his position. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved the principle that each case must be considered upon its own peculiar facts (see Escobedo v. Ill., supra), we deem it proper to discuss the salient features of the present situation.
The record, including numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hancock v. White, 6844.
...379 U.S. 854, 85 S.Ct. 103, 13 L.Ed.2d 57 (1964). An original petition for habeas corpus was later dismissed. White v. Hancock, 106 N.H. 172, 207 A.2d 435 (1965). The incriminating statements perhaps amounting to a confession which were admitted in evidence were made during an automobile tr......
-
State v. Widi
...v. State, 140 N.H. 182, 184–85, 664 A.2d 81 (1995) (extending holding of Grote to other types of habeas claims); White v. Hancock, 106 N.H. 172, 173–74, 207 A.2d 435 (1965) (describing the record in habeas case as including the petition). We conclude that this same principle should apply to......
-
White v. Hancock
...Supreme Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by that court on February 26, 1965. White v. Hancock, 106 N.H. 172, 207 A.2d 435 (1965). He then filed in this Court the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his conviction was obtained in viola......
-
White v. Hancock, 6557.
...196 A.2d 33, cert. den. 379 U.S. 854, 85 S.Ct. 103, 13 L.Ed.2d 57. His state habeas corpus petition was also dismissed. White v. Hancock, 1965, 106 N.H. 172, 207 A.2d 435. He now seeks review by the federal courts, claiming infringement of his constitutional rights, citing Massiah v. United......