TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Douglas

State v. John E. Douglas

State v. Douglas, 162 A.2d 159 (N.H. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 27, 1960
Docket
No. 4850
Judges
Wheeler
Citations
162 A.2d 159102 N.H. 5251960 N.H. LEXIS 71

Opinion — Wheeler

Wheeler, J.

The principal contention of the defendant is that the State’s evidence is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the offense charged because it must be considered independently of any extrajudicial admission of the defendant in determining whether the State’s evidence is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant relies upon the great weight of authority which holds that an extrajudicial confession, standing alone, is insufficient to establish guilt. With this general rule the State does not disagree, but the State does contend that the admission of the defendant, taken in connection with other evidence, was sufficient here to establish the corpus delicti.

We are of the opinion that the authorities cited by the defendant do not support his contention that supporting evidence must be considered independently of the extrajudicial confession or admission in order to establish the corpus delicti of the offense charged. These authorities stand for no more than the proposition that in order to support a conviction the admission or confession must be “corroborated” by independent evidence. The great weight of authority supports the State’s position. 127 A. L. R. 1130, 1138;

State v. LaLouche, 116 Conn. 691 .

When the officer arrived at the scene, the defendant’s car was against a telephone pole with the defendant standing by. It was mute evidence, nothing to the contrary appearing, from which it could be found that immediately prior to the collision with the pole it had been operated upon Marlboro Street which was stipulated to be a public highway. The evidence warranted a finding that the defendant was intoxicated immediately after the accident. With the testimony of the officer and the doctor that the defendant *527 admitted he was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, there was sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11970: 11976: 11997: 119652026peak 1965 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Easley v. Portman490 S.E.2d 613 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)
  2. State v. Hanley356 A.2d 687 (N.H. 1976)
  3. State v. Scanlon263 A.2d 669 (N.H. 1970)
  4. State v. Mace210 A.2d 675 (Conn. App. Ct. 1965)

Most recent

  1. City of Easley v. Portman490 S.E.2d 613 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)
  2. State v. Hanley356 A.2d 687 (N.H. 1976)
  3. State v. Scanlon263 A.2d 669 (N.H. 1970)
  4. State v. Mace210 A.2d 675 (Conn. App. Ct. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Lalouche, 166 A. 252 (Conn. 1933) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list