Legal Opinion
State v. Reenstierna
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided April 24, 1958No. 4634PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.
The utilization of probative methods developed by modern medicine and science as an aid for a judge or jury to determine disputed questions of fact has received hospitable recognition in this state by both judicial decision and statute. State v. Thorp, 86 N. H. 501; State v. Mihoy, 98 N. H. 38; Groulx v. Groulx, 98 N. H. 481; State v. Sargent, 100 N. H. 29; RSA ch. 522; RSA 262:20. In motor vehicle offenses a chemical test to determine intoxication is considered one example of a reliable scientific method, the validity of which is not open to serious objection here or elsewhere. RSA 262:20;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Breithaupt v. AbramSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Rodgers v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1955
- Estes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1955
3Cited by20 opinions
- United States v. Orville E. Stifel, IICourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- State v. LarochelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Jones v. City of Forrest CitySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- Apodaca v. BacaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
- State v. FosterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.