N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title xxi / Chapter 265
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 265:82-a (2026)

Repealed by 2006, 260:37, XIV, eff. Jan. 1, 2007

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    265:82-a Repealed by 2006, 260:37, XIV, eff. Jan. 1, 2007. –
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: State v. Polk, 927 A.2d 514 (N.H. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Polk, 927 A.2d 514 (N.H. 2007). · cites it 13× “) for aggravated driving while intoxicated *586 (aggravated DWI), RSA 265:82-a (2004) (amended 2004; repealed 2006).”
State v. Gallagher, 951 A.2d 130 (N.H. 2008). · cites it 3× “Driving records which showed that Gallagher had previously been convicted pursuant to RSA 265:82 (2004) (repealed 2007), and Hughes pursuant to RSA 265:82-a (2004) (repealed 2007), were the bases for the trial court’s finding that each was guilty of a second offense.”
State v. Stern, 846 A.2d 64 (N.H. 2004). · cites it 3× “2003), and aggravated driving while intoxicated, see RSA 265:82-a (Supp. 2003), and her sentence on the negligent homicide charge.”
State v. MacLeod, 685 A.2d 473 (N.H. 1996). · cites it 4× “, based on convictions for: (1) operation of a motor vehicle after having been certified as an habitual offender, RSA 262:23 (1993); (2) *428 aggravated driving while intoxicated, RSA 265:82-a (1993 & Supp. 1995); and (3) second degree assault, RSA 831:2 (1996).”
State v. Barka, 839 A.2d 837 (N.H. 2004). · cites it 2× “See RSA265:82-a, 1(b), 11(b) (2002); RSA 265:82-b, 1(c) (2002); RSA 625:11, VI (1996).”
State v. Hull, 827 A.2d 1001 (N.H. 2003). “RSA265:82-b, II provides: Upon conviction of any offense under RSA 215-A:11, RSA 265:82, or RSA 265:82-a, based on a complaint which alleged that the person has had one or more prior convictions under [those statutes], or RSA 630:3, II, or under reasonably equivalent offenses in…”
Opinion of the Justices, 557 A.2d 1355 (N.H. 1989). · cites it 4× “1988) or RSA 265:82-a, II or III (Supp. 1988). The first of these three sections prohibits anyone from driving a vehicle “[wjhile there is 10/100 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood.”
State v. Jenkins, 517 A.2d 1182 (N.H. 1986). · cites it 2× “1985), be advised, prior to submitting to a chemical test for intoxication, that the results of the test may result in a charge for the more serious offense of aggravated driving while intoxicated, RSA 265:82-a (Supp. 1985). We hold that neither the due process nor the equal…”
State v. Timothy Bobola, 138 A.3d 519 (N.H. 2016). “VI, any person convicted of an offense may petition for annulment of the record of arrest, conviction, and sentence when the petitioner has completed all the terms and conditions of the sentence and has thereafter been convicted of no other crime, except a motor vehicle offense…”
State v. Taylor, 566 A.2d 172 (N.H. 1989). “1988) and RSA 265:82-a, II and III (Supp. 1988) is not squarely before us, we nevertheless conclude that the same reasoning which applies to a DWI prosecution under RSA 265:82, 1(a) applies with equal force to a prosecution under the per se statutes.”
State v. Wall, 910 A.2d 1253 (N.H. 2006). “The defendant was subsequently indicted for aggravated driving while intoxicated under RSA 265:82-a, III (Supp. 2003), which requires a blood alcohol concentration of 0.”
State v. Steimel, 921 A.2d 378 (N.H. 2007). “See RSA 265:82-a (2004) (current version at RSA 265-A:3 (Supp.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.