State v. Hungerford
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, C.J.
The State appeals the Superior Court’s (Groff, J.) ruling that the testimony of two alleged sexual assault victims is not admissible in criminal prosecutions against the defendants, Joel Hungerford and John Morahan. See RSA 606:10, II (1986). We affirm and remand.
For our limited review of the underlying facts, we will rely on the findings that the trial court made for purposes of its ruling on the admissibility of the complainants’ testimony. The complainant in State v. Hungerford, Laura, is a woman in her late twenties who had suffered from symptoms of clinical depression and had experienced…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- State v. HurdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- People v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Logerquist v. McVeyArizona Supreme Court · 2000
- Higgs v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2010
- Roark v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Hungerford v. JonesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1998
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.