7 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2016Id.; see Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). 2007(Citations omitted.) The defendant also contends that the propriety of the district court identification should be analyzed under the two-step analysis “commonly referred to as the Biggers’ test.” See Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2014The trial court found the Biggers analysis inapplicable according to our holding in State v. King, 156 N.H. 371 (2007), and allowed the in-court identification. 2014The trial court found the Biggers analysis inapplicable according to our holding in State v. King, 156 N.H. 371 (2007), and allowed the in-court identification. | 2 | 3 |
Perry v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2014“The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.” Id. at 728 (emphasis added); see also State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792, 801-02 (2010) (holding that the Biggers analysis does not apply to either in-court or out-of-court identification in the absence of improper state action). 2014“The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.” Id. at 728 (emphasis added); see also State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792, 801-02 (2010) (holding that the Biggers analysis does not apply to either in-court or out-of-court identification in the absence of improper state action). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Addisongreen2 sentences2014“The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.” Id. at 728 (emphasis added); see also State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792, 801-02 (2010) (holding that the Biggers analysis does not apply to either in-court or out-of-court identification in the absence of improper state action). 2014“The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.” Id. at 728 (emphasis added); see also State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792, 801-02 (2010) (holding that the Biggers analysis does not apply to either in-court or out-of-court identification in the absence of improper state action). | 2 | 2 |
State of New Hampshire v. Myles Webstergreen2 sentences2015See Webster, 166 N.H. at 788 . 2015See Webster, 166 N.H. at 788 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)). 2014See State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quinterogreen2 sentences2014“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532 (2011) (quotation omitted). 2014“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532 (2011) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences2014In the alternative, the defendant urges us to “overrule King and apply the Biggers factors when the State seeks to elicit a witness’s first identification in-court.” ‘We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008). 2014In the alternative, the defendant urges us to “overrule King and apply the Biggers factors when the State seeks to elicit a witness’s first identification in-court.” ‘We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State of New Hampshire v. James Perrygreen2 sentences2014See State v. King, 156 N.H. 371, 376 (2007); see also State v. Perry, 166 N.H. 716, 720 (2014). 2014See State v. King, 156 N.H. 371, 376 (2007); see also State v. Perry, 166 N.H. 716, 720 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. De León-Quiñonesgreen2 sentences2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). 2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Martineau v. Perringreen2 sentences2010See Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531 (1979). 2010See Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joseph T. Bouthotgreen2 sentences2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). 2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Lee Matthews and Robert G. Pratergreen2 sentences2007In addition, in accordance with our discussion above, the general rule is that absent an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure, “questions as to the reliability of a proposed in-court identification affect only the identification’s weight, not its admissibility.” United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 547 (2d Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds. 2007In addition, in accordance with our discussion above, the general rule is that absent an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure, “questions as to the reliability of a proposed in-court identification affect only the identification’s weight, not its admissibility.” United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 547 (2d Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Obergreen1 sentence2007Cf id. at 383-84 (applying Biggers factors to determine whether witness had grounds to identify defendant independent of challenged procedure at the outset of trial in which defendant was asked by the court clerk to stand). | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth Solomon v. Harold J. Smith, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondentgreen2 sentences1982See Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d at 1188 . 1982See Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d at 1188 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Russell E. Hillgreen2 sentences2007But see United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (holding “that the Biggers analysis applies to ... in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identifications”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). *375 The court in Domina explained the differences between initial pretrial and in-court identifications that justify different treatment in determining their admissibility: The concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that the witness later identifies the person in c 2007But see United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (holding “that the Biggers analysis applies to ... in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identifications”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). *375 The court in Domina explained the differences between initial pretrial and in-court identifications that justify different treatment in determining their admissibility: The concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that the witness later identifies the person in c | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. Norrisgreen2 sentences2007But see United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (holding “that the Biggers analysis applies to ... in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identifications”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). *375 The court in Domina explained the differences between initial pretrial and in-court identifications that justify different treatment in determining their admissibility: The concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that the witness later identifies the person in c 2007But see United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (holding “that the Biggers analysis applies to ... in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identifications”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). *375 The court in Domina explained the differences between initial pretrial and in-court identifications that justify different treatment in determining their admissibility: The concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that the witness later identifies the person in c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. United States
neutral
2 sentences2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). 2010The trial court did not perform a Biggers analysis because it ruled that “[i]f state action does not cause a suggestive encounter, the Biggers factors are not relevant to the admissibility of an identification.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in light of United States v. Bouthot, 878 F.2d 1506 (1st Cir. 1989), and United States v. De León-Quiñones, 588 F.3d 748 (1st Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2361 (2010). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. LaRose
green
1 sentence2007We described the two-step analysis as follows in State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146 (1985): *374 Initially, we inquire into whether the identification procedure was impermissibly or unnecessarily suggestive. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.