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.
10 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2024 2 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. L'Heureuxgreen2 sentences2024RSA 627:1 (2016); see State v. L’Heureux, 150 N.H. 822, 826 (2004). 2019State v. L’Heureux, 150 N.H. 822, 826 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kiewertgreen2 sentences2019“The justification for this exception to the hearsay rule rests upon the assumption that one does not make statements that would damage oneself unless the statement is true.” State v. Kiewert, 135 N.H. 338, 343 (1992) (quotations and brackets omitted). 11 On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in ruling that the statements at issue were against Papillon’s penal interest. 2017“The justification for this exception to the hearsay rule rests upon the assumption that one does not make statements that would damage oneself unless the [statements are] true.” Id. (quotations and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Leafgreen1 sentence2022Id.; State v. Leaf, 137 N.H. 97, 99 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westgreen1 sentence2019See RSA 627:8; cf. State v. 2 West, 167 N.H. 465, 470-71 (2017) (ruling that the trial court’s jury instructions correctly explained “the requirement in RSA 627:7 that one using force must reasonably believe the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass”). | 1 | 1 |
Vs DiCARLO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Stategreen1 sentence2011S. DiCarlo Construction Co., Inc. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52, 57 (Mo. 1972). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antonio John Palumbo, IIgreen1 sentence1992The justification for this exception to the hearsay rule ‘“rests upon the assumption that one does not make statements that would damage [oneself] unless the statement is true.’” United States v. Palumbo, 639 F.2d 123, 127 (3d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 , 345-46 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1978)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 819 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrongreen2 sentences1982The fact that the jury instruction was given at the close of all the evidence aside, a review of the trial transcript reveals that the defendant himself first raised the issue of intent, see State v. Perron, 122 N.H. 941, 949 , 454 A.2d 422, 426 (1982), when he raised the justification defense of self-defense in his trial for negligent homicide. 1982The fact that the jury instruction was given at the close of all the evidence aside, a review of the trial transcript reveals that the defendant himself first raised the issue of intent, see State v. Perron, 122 N.H. 941, 949 , 454 A.2d 422, 426 (1982), when he raised the justification defense of self-defense in his trial for negligent homicide. | 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. O'Brien
green
1 sentence2004RSA 627:1 (1996); Bernard, 141 N.H. at 234; O’Brien, 132 N.H. at 589 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Milton Edward Bailey
green
1 sentence1992The justification for this exception to the hearsay rule ‘“rests upon the assumption that one does not make statements that would damage [oneself] unless the statement is true.’” United States v. Palumbo, 639 F.2d 123, 127 (3d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 , 345-46 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1978)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 819 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Grote v. United States
green
1 sentence1992The justification for this exception to the hearsay rule ‘“rests upon the assumption that one does not make statements that would damage [oneself] unless the statement is true.’” United States v. Palumbo, 639 F.2d 123, 127 (3d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 , 345-46 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1978)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 819 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.