Legal Opinion

State v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 30, 2013No. 2012-038PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLynn, J.

Consistent with the law of most jurisdictions, New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) permits the introduction of co-conspirators’ statements when made during the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy. However, post-arrest statements of co-conspirators are not admissible under this rule.1 In this case, a substantial number of post-arrest co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted during the trial of the defendant, Hector Rodriguez, before the Superior Court (Colburn, J.) on charges of burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, first degree assault, accomplice to first degree…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Lockhart v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. United States v. MeisesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
  4. New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. ButlandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
  5. United States v. McCalebCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. FischerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
  2. State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Abdulgani AhmedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2026
  3. State v. PondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API