Legal Opinion
State v. Ballou
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided July 31, 1984No. 83-227; No. 82-572PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
These cases are before us on an interlocutory transfer without ruling from the Superior Court (Cann, J.). The sole *307question before us that was briefed and argued is whether RSA 651:ll-a, I (Supp. 1983), if applied to this defendant, would be an illegal retrospective or ex post facto law. We rule that RSA 651:ll-a, I (Supp. 1983), if applied to this defendant and those similarly situated, would be a retrospective law violative of the New Hampshire Constitution, part I, article 23.
The operative facts are summarized from the agreed statement of facts in the interlocutory transfer. On June 4,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. BallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- Fasulo v. ArafehSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Woart v. WinnickSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826
- Novosel v. HelgemoeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. CostelloSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Doe v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2015
- In re G. K.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1986
- In re HamelSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1993
- State v. HeathSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.