§

State v. Watson

120 N.H. 950 (N.H. 1980)
State v. Watson

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Erik M.

    146 N.H. 508 (N.H. 2001)   Cited 3 times
    Stating no hearing required in superior court on acceptance of certification and transfer from district court where defendant did not set forth reasons why hearing would assist court

    To the contrary, even assuming that transfer to superior court is a criminal matter, Rule 58 applies. See Super.Ct.R. 115; see also State v. Watson, 120 N.H. 950, 952 (1980) (discussing Rule 58 in criminal case context). We hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying the juvenile's request for oral argument.

  2. State v. Bain

    145 N.H. 367 (N.H. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    [4-6] Second, a trial court is not required to grant an unopposed motion. See State v. Watson, 120 N.H. 950, 952, 424 A.2d 417, 418 (1980). Furthermore, the defendant's motion requested dismissal on the flawed premise that the defendant was faced with an impermissible choice between constitutional rights.

  3. State v. LaRose

    497 A.2d 1224 (N.H. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that “ defendant is guilty of the class A felony of kidnapping only if the jury finds that the evidence establishes both the class B felony of kidnapping as defined in RSA 633:1, I, and the elements of a class A felony set forth in RSA 633:1, II”

    Likewise, the State's compliance with Rule 58 presents no reviewable issue, since that rule merely permits the court to act upon a motion without a hearing if the party opposing the motion fails to request one, and to object to the motion; Rule 58 does not require the trial court to rule in the defendant's favor where, as here, the defendant filed the motion to suppress his prior criminal record. See State v. Watson, 120 N.H. 950, 952, 424 A.2d 417, 418 (1980). The defendant next argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his criminal record, because the State impermissibly sought to have the convictions introduced as substantive evidence and not merely for the purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility if he chose to testify.