(Download) "State v. Raymond H. Canatella. State V." by Supreme Court of New Hampshire " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Raymond H. Canatella. State V.
- Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Release Date : January 04, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
Each respondent was charged with the taking of ""Eighteen ($18.00) Dollars of the lawful currency and money of the United States of America of the value of Eighteen ($18.00) Dollars of the goods and chattels"" of the complaining witness. While exceptions to the denial of the motions to quash for insufficient description of the offense charged have not been argued by the respondents, their brief indicates the basis of the exceptions to be an alleged insufficiency in the description of the money taken. Under the early cases of Hamblett v. State, 18 N.H. 384, and Ford v. State, 20 N.H. 404, a somewhat particular description of money taken was held to be required in indictments for larceny, although in the former case a particular description of each bill or note was said to be unnecessary. See also, State v. Mahanna, 48 N.H. 377. The reasons for the required description of articles alleged to have been taken were stated in State v. Fogg, 92 N.H. 308, 309, and need not be repeated here. It was there held that where the total value of the property is alleged, the ""value of each article is immaterial and need not be stated."" The practical difficulty of furnishing a description of small bills taken was pointed out in Commonwealth v. Grimes, 10 Gray (Mass.) 470. Cf. A. L. I. Code Crim. Proc., s. 168. No better description is required than the circumstances of the particular case will admit (32 Am. Jur. 1022), and necessary omissions may be cured by recital that a more particular description is to the grand jurors unknown. State v. Burke, 54 N.H. 92, 94, 95; 36 L. R. A. (n. s.) 943. While the better practice calls for such a recital, its omission in this case is a formal rather than substantive defect, and not fatal. R. L., c. 427, s. 12. When the offense charged is larceny the degree of the offense is dependent upon the value of the goods taken. R. L., c. 452, ss. 3-5; Laws 1949, c. 140. Particular allegations of value are less material where robbery is charged, for the gist of the offense is force and intimidation. R. L., c. 455, s. 18; State v. Gorham, 55 N.H. 152, 166; People v. Nolan, 250 Ill. 351. The indictments sufficiently met the requirements of a full and plain description of the offense as required by Article 15th of the Bill of Rights. State v. Fogg, supra. The respondents have directed their principal argument to the issue presented by their motions to quash because of the presence of the police officer in the grand jury room during the testimony of the complaining witness. The conduct of grand jury proceedings in this jurisdiction is little regulated by either Constitution or statute. Article 15th of the Bill of Rights makes no express reference to such proceedings but guarantees that no subject shall be ""arrested, imprisoned... or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."" Whatever the meaning of the concluding words of this article (Mayo v. Wilson, 1 N.H. 53, 55; Hutchins v. Edson, 1 N.H. 139, 140; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.) p. 500 et seq.), it will not be questioned that the common law right to ""a lawful accusation"" by a grand jury is among the rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. See State v. Gerry, 68 N.H. 495, 497. By statute, grand jurors are required to be sworn to secrecy. R. L., c. 427, s. 4. This requirement does not extend to witnesses before the jury. Ib., s. 5. The reasons assigned for the requirement of secrecy indicate that it is imposed primarily for the protection of persons other than an accused who is indicted. Wig. Ev., s. 2360; Orfield, Crim. Proc., 167. See State v. Wood, 53 N.H. 484, 493.