Legal Opinion

State v. Costello

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 15, 1994No. 93-767PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBatchelder, J.

This is an interlocutory transfer without ruling from the Claremont District Court {Leahy, J). The sole question before us is whether applying RSA 632-A:14 (Supp. 1993), which requires registration of sexual offenders, to the defendant, whose conviction antedated enactment of the statute, violates State and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We hold that it does not. The defendant’s additional argument raising a State constitutional due process claim was not contemplated in the interlocutory transfer, and we therefore do not address it.

The facts are not in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Trop v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth RanchSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. People v. AdamsIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. VashawSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
  5. In re HamelSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Russell v. GregoireCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  2. Ward v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  4. State v. MyersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1996
  5. State v. BolligWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API