State v. Floyd

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. MacLeod

    402 A.2d 1338 (N.H. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Its condition thereafter is evidence that defendant and his companions were attempting to release the lock so that the bike could be driven away and that their intent was to deprive the owner of it for good. We hold that the evidence supported a finding of guilt, see State v. Floyd, 116 N.H. 632, 365 A.2d 738 (1976), and that there was no error in the denial of defendant's motion for a directed verdict. State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976).

  2. State v. Boisvert

    119 N.H. 174 (N.H. 1979)   Cited 25 times

    We summarily dismiss the defendant's second claim, noting that he did not object or raise exception during trial to allowing the testimony of the State's medical witness concerning the mental condition of the complaining witness. State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 397 A.2d 1041 (1979); State v. Floyd, 116 N.H. 632, 635, 365 A.2d 738, 740 (1976); State v. Lemire, 115 N.H. 526, 534, 345 A.2d 906, 912 (1975). The defendant has, however, correctly preserved the issue of the propriety of the trial court's refusal to grant his pretrial motion for a psychiatric examination of the complaining witness.

  3. State v. Dorsey

    118 N.H. 844 (N.H. 1978)   Cited 37 times
    Noting that "by allowing the defendant this backdoor use of the competing harms statute, the court gave him the benefit of a defense to which he was not entitled"

    " For that reason he cannot now complain about the instruction. State v. Floyd, 116 N.H. 632, 365 A.2d 738 (1976). Moreover, by allowing defendant this backdoor use of the competing harms statute, the court gave him the benefit of a defense to which he was not entitled.

  4. State v. Breest

    116 N.H. 734 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 48 times
    Setting forth the facts of Breest's trial and conviction

    The failure to repeat the description of the automobile to be searched as also an object to be seized along with objects found therein cannot be said to have made its seizure unreasonable under the fourth amendment on the facts and circumstances. Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 62 (1967); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 66 (1950); South Dakota v. Opperman, 96 S. Ct. 3092 (1976); State v. Floyd, 116 N.H. 632, 365 A.2d 738 (1976); see Andresen v. Maryland, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 2747-48 (1976). The State described the defendant's automobile as an item seized in the inventory made to the Lowell District Court of the property taken pursuant to the search warrant it issued April 2, 1971. The State also obtained an order from that court authorizing its transportation to Concord for whatever use its police department might deem advisable in connection with the death of Susan Randall.