State v. Coolidge
State v. Edward H. Coolidge, Jr.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per curiam.
In this jurisdiction, the authority of the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi in advance of trial is firmly *427 established. State v. Swift, 101 N. H. 340, 343; State v. Lavallee, 104 N. H. 443, 446. Nor is it restricted by statute or rule of court. State v. Smith, 49 N. H. 155. Cf. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48 (a).
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213 , relied upon by the defendant in support of its “motion to dismiss notwithstanding the nol pross,” requires no different conclusion. The entry in that case of “nolle prosequi with leave,” under the North Carolina practice did not operate to discharge the indictment, but permitted it to be reinstated upon the prosecutor’s application. Hence the pendency of the indictment was held to deny the petitioner in the case the right to speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution. Id., 222 . See also, Commonwealth v. Gant, 213 Pa. Super. 427 .
Under our practice, the entry of nolle prosequi operated to discharge the indictment, so that the case is no longer pending, as the Trial Court correctly ruled. See Lewis v. United States, 216 U. S. 611 ; Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 517 . Other issues briefed by the defendant thus require no consideration.
Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.