State v. Coolidge
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Per curiam
In this jurisdiction, the authority of the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi in advance of trial is firmly *427established. 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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Parr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Commonwealth v. GrantSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
- State v. PondSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1990
- Hammell v. WardenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2001
- State v. Southern New Hampshire Builders Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- State v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.