State v. Yell

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Harvey

    108 N.H. 139 (N.H. 1967)   Cited 4 times

    It is settled law in this state that it is generally sufficient to describe a statutory crime in the words of the statute. State v. Goodwin, 101 N.H. 252, 253; State v. Yell, 104 N.H. 87, 88; State v. Panichas, 107 N.H. 359, 362. There are exceptions to this rule which occur more often in felony cases than in misdemeanor cases.

  2. State v. Panichas

    107 N.H. 359 (N.H. 1966)   Cited 7 times

    Generally an indictment is sufficient if it uses the words of the proper section of the applicable statute. State v. Yell, 104 N.H. 87. The test of its sufficiency remains always the same: whether it gives the defendant enough information so that he can prepare for trial. State v. Rousten, 84 N.H. 140, 143. Our statute (RSA 583, section 12) does not appear to have ever been construed here and authorities elsewhere under similar provisions are not uniform. Annot. 103 A.L.R. 1309.

  3. State v. Webster

    200 A.2d 856 (N.H. 1964)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Webster, 105 N.H. 415, 417, 200 A.2d 856, 858 (1964), this court noted: "In indictments or complaints created by statute it is in general sufficient to describe the offense in the words of the statute.

    In indictments or complaints created by statute it is in general sufficient to describe the offense in the words of the statute. State v. Yell, 104 N.H. 87. But a complaint so drawn does not always meet the constitutional requirements that a fair and full description of the offense must be alleged. State v. Gilbert, 89 N.H. 134.

  4. State v. Scofield

    7 Ariz. App. 307 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 38 times
    In State v. Scofield (1968), 7 Ariz. App. 307, 438 P.2d 776, the defendant was convicted of embezzlement from a car rental agency after he failed to return the car.

    147 S.W.2d at 465. See also, State v. Yell, 104 N.H. 87, 178 A.2d 289 (1962). In State v. Harris, 313 S.W.2d 664 (Mo. 1958), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the words "feloniously and fraudulently" were not of similar import to the statutory term "intent to defraud."