TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Fraser

State of New Hampshire v. Kevin Fraser

State v. Fraser, 365 A.2d 1046 (N.H. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 29, 1976
Docket
No. 7485
Citations
365 A.2d 1046116 N.H. 6421976 N.H. LEXIS 435

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant, convicted in Derry District Court on a complaint of assault, appealed to the superior court. Upon receipt of the defendant’s appeal, the clerk of the superior court duly sent *643 notice to the defendant at his last known address that pursuant to superior court rule 86 the payment of an entry fee was required to perfect his appeal. The fee was not paid, and after the expiration of the 20-day period specified by rule 86, the clerk remanded the case to the district court for imposition of the original sentence. Defendant’s motion to reinstate the appeal was denied by Perkins, J., and all questions of law raised by his exceptions thereto were reserved and transferred.

The clerk’s letter informing the defendant of the necessary procedure for perfecting his appeal was sent to the home of the defendant’s mother in Chester, the address initially provided to the court by the defendant. It was never received by him, however, because at the time of its mailing he had moved to the home of a friend in Londonderry. The defendant did not inform the court of this change of address, nor did he leave a forwarding address at the Chester post office. Where a defendant has given directions specifying where notice shall be sent, it is his duty to inform the notifier of any change in address. The fact that a party fails to receive a letter of notice due to his own omission in supplying this information does not render the notice defective. Devore v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Colo. 10 , 266 P.2d 774 (1964); McCoy v. Bureau of Unempl. Compensation, 81 Ohio App. 158 , 77 N.E.2d 76 (1947); 1 M. Merrill, Notice § 639, at 729 (1952). Accordingly, we hold that the letter of the clerk of court, sent to the defendant’s last address of record, constituted due notice, and that the remand of the defendant’s case to the district court following his default under rule 86 was proper.

Exceptions denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1978: 11989: 12016: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hess387 A.2d 1183 (N.H. 1978)
  2. In re Sumner Chabot and Brittney OberNo. 2016-0119 (N.H. Oct. 12, 2016)
  3. In re Breau565 A.2d 1044 (N.H. 1989)

Most recent

  1. In re Sumner Chabot and Brittney OberNo. 2016-0119 (N.H. Oct. 12, 2016)
  2. In re Breau565 A.2d 1044 (N.H. 1989)
  3. State v. Hess387 A.2d 1183 (N.H. 1978)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
McCoy v. State Emp. Bureau, 77 N.E.2d 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 1947) 18
Devore v. Indus. Comm'n, 266 P.2d 774 (Colo. 1954) 3

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