Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tynangreen2 sentences1993See State v. Tynan, 132 N.H. 461, 464 , 566 A.2d 1142, 1143-44 (1989). 1993See State v. Tynan, 132 N.H. 461, 464 , 566 A.2d 1142, 1143-44 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lamygreen1 sentence2024See Lamy, 158 N.H. at 525 . | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Cf. Caldwell v. State, 228 S.E.2d 219, 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976) (rejecting a Williams-style rule in favor of a rule in which “the state may prove any date within the period of limitations as held in the general time-variance cases; but if defendant, relying upon an alibi defense for the time alleged in the indictment, is surprised and prejudiced by a time variance, upon his motion therefor he will be afforded sufficient time to prepare his defense to meet the new date” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mateygreen1 sentence2010We find error under this rule “sparingly,” and only to prevent “a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266 (2006) (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Pina v. Maloneygreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Pina v. Maloney, 565 F.3d 48, 56 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Under these circumstances, counsel’s decision to pursue a defense of misidentification, rather than an alibi defense, can only be viewed as a reasonable, tactical decision.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hancockgreen1 sentence2010The State further argues that the change was not prejudicial because the defendant did not assert “an alibi defense” or other “defense based on lack of opportunity.” The plain error rule allows us to exercise our discretion to correct errors not raised in the trial court that affect “substantial rights.” Sup. Ct. R. 16-A. To find plain error: “(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain[;] (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 303 (2007 | 1 | 1 |
Bright v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2001“The alibi instruc tion is appropriate only when the defense evidence demonstrates the defendant’s presence elsewhere for the entire period of time the government’s evidence shows he was involved in criminal activity.” Bright v. United States, 698 A.2d 450, 459 (D.C. 1997) (quotation and brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Greenhow v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2001An alibi “places the defendant at the relevant time of crime in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 71 (6th ed. 1990). “[T]o be legally effective [the alibi defense] must cover the entire time during which the crime is alleged to have been committed.” Greenhow v. United, States, 490 A.2d 1130, 1134 (D.C. 1985) (quotation omitted). 2001An alibi “places the defendant at the relevant time of crime in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 71 (6th ed. 1990). “[T]o be legally effective [the alibi defense] must cover the entire time during which the crime is alleged to have been committed.” Greenhow v. United, States, 490 A.2d 1130, 1134 (D.C. 1985) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ray Anthony McDougaldgreen1 sentence1999Other courts apply a broader rule and have held that the instruction is appropriate where exculpatory statements beyond a mere denial are proven false, see Bear Killer, 534 F.2d at 1260 (exculpatory statements asserted an alibi defense); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (defendant accused of cashing income tax refund check and replacement check accused store manager of allowing another customer to cash her original refund check), abrogated on other grounds by Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), or where “any other exculpatory statement ... is contradicted b | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Eva Shaw Cogdellgreen1 sentence1999Other courts apply a broader rule and have held that the instruction is appropriate where exculpatory statements beyond a mere denial are proven false, see Bear Killer, 534 F.2d at 1260 (exculpatory statements asserted an alibi defense); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (defendant accused of cashing income tax refund check and replacement check accused store manager of allowing another customer to cash her original refund check), abrogated on other grounds by Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), or where “any other exculpatory statement ... is contradicted b | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ralph Bear Killer, Jr.green1 sentence1999Other courts apply a broader rule and have held that the instruction is appropriate where exculpatory statements beyond a mere denial are proven false, see Bear Killer, 534 F.2d at 1260 (exculpatory statements asserted an alibi defense); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (defendant accused of cashing income tax refund check and replacement check accused store manager of allowing another customer to cash her original refund check), abrogated on other grounds by Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), or where “any other exculpatory statement ... is contradicted b | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fennellgreen2 sentences1998Such a narrow focus did not interfere with the defendant’s ability to establish an alibi defense, see State v. Fennell, 133 N.H. 402, 411 , 578 A.2d 329, 334 (1990), and thus the concerns underlying Williams are not implicated. 1998Such a narrow focus did not interfere with the defendant’s ability to establish an alibi defense, see State v. Fennell, 133 N.H. 402, 411 , 578 A.2d 329, 334 (1990), and thus the concerns underlying Williams are not implicated. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1998On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury either a time-based defense instruction under State v. Williams, 137 N.H. 343 , 629 A.2d 83 (1993), (Williams instruction) or an alibi instruction. 1998On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury either a time-based defense instruction under State v. Williams, 137 N.H. 343 , 629 A.2d 83 (1993), (Williams instruction) or an alibi instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boire
green
2 sentences2001We recognize that in Boire itself, a variance between the date of offense alleged in the bill of particulars and the evidence as to date produced at trial might well have prejudiced the defendant, who “based his request [for a bill of particulars] on the possibility of an alibi defense.” Boire, 124 N.H. at 623 . 1995Boire, 124 N.H. at 623 , 474 A.2d at 569 . | 2 | 1995–2001 |
Brogan v. United States
green
1 sentence1999Other courts apply a broader rule and have held that the instruction is appropriate where exculpatory statements beyond a mere denial are proven false, see Bear Killer, 534 F.2d at 1260 (exculpatory statements asserted an alibi defense); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179, 181 (4th Cir. 1988) (defendant accused of cashing income tax refund check and replacement check accused store manager of allowing another customer to cash her original refund check), abrogated on other grounds by Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), or where “any other exculpatory statement ... is contradicted b | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Thomas Littlefield
green
1 sentence1999On appeal, the defendant asks us to adopt the rule set forth in Littlefield, 840 F.2d at 149 , that it is inappropriate to issue a “false exculpatory evidence” instruction where the jury can find the exculpatory statement to be false only after making the necessary finding that the defendant is guilty of the charged offense. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Clark
green
1 sentence1996Here, even our review of “the sterile pages of [the] transcript,” id., supports the jury’s decision to reject the defendant’s alibi defense. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Williams v. Florida
green
1 sentence1995In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an alibi statute that required a defendant to disclose prior to trial that he intends to rely on an alibi as a defense and to list the names of witnesses he intends to call at trial to prove the alibi. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Hoban
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 540 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Perron
green
2 sentences1984“We will not second-guess the tactical decisions of defense counsel.” State v. Perron, 122 N.H. at 947 , 454 A.2d at 425 . 1984“We will not second-guess the tactical decisions of defense counsel.” State v. Perron, 122 N.H. at 947 , 454 A.2d at 425 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.