State v. Smith
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Five indictments were found March term, 1869, against Willard Smith, three of them, for selling liquor, one for keeping liquor for sale, and one for being a common seller. At March term, 1869, res-pendent pleaded “ not guilty.”
Read the full summary
Five indictments were found March term, 1869, against Willard Smith, three of them, for selling liquor, one for keeping liquor for sale, and one for being a common seller. At March term, 1869, res-pendent pleaded “ not guilty.” At the September term, the solicit- or, stated that he believed, that the respondent, had ceased the sale of liquor, and that he had arranged with respondent’s counsel, that, if the respondent pleaded nolo contendere to all the indictments, the state would, at this time, move for sentence, on only one indictment; reserving the right to bring forward the other…
1Opinion of the CourtNesmith, J.
No question is made, by the counsel on either side, as to the general discretionary power of the prosecuting officer, in this state, to entera nolle prosequi in ordinary indictments, instituted in the name of the state. This power, such officer, exercises virtute officii, frequently, before a jury is empanneled, and, sometimes, while the case is on trial, before the jury, with the consent of the respondent, and, sometimes, after a verdict is rendered against the prisoner.
It may be, that the prosecuting officer, finds his indictment defective in form, or substance, and, that he may wish to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. BrokawDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 1945
- State v. PondSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1990
- Bokowsky v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
- State v. CourtemarcheSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998