State v. Langelier
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtJohnston, J.
No question is raised concerning the seasonableness of the motion to quash and no opinion is expressed concerning this in view of the ruling that the indictment meets the constitutional requirements. See, State v. Proctor, 91 N. H. 347, 348.
Article 15th of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of New Hampshire provides: “No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offense, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; ...” The test for determining whether an indictment conforms to this requirement was set forth in State v. Rousten, 84 N. H. 140,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. GilbertSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- State v. RoustenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
- State v. ProctorSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BootonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- State v. EtzweilerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
- Town of Rye v. CiborowskiSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971