Supreme Court of New Hampshire
State v. Wood
June 15, 187353 N.H. 484
Summary
The court upheld the respondent’s murder conviction and rejected all assigned exceptions. It held that the charged offense did not carry a possible death sentence, that grand-jury testimony could be used when necessary to promote justice, and that the challenged evidence and indictment were legally sufficient. The court also found no juror misconduct warranting a new trial.
Holding
- Entitlement to a witness list and twenty peremptory challenges. A defendant charged with murder in the second degree is not entitled to a list of the state’s witnesses or twenty peremptory jury challenges because the offense is punishable by imprisonment, not death.
- Use of grand-jury testimony. A grand juror may be compelled to testify about what a witness stated before the grand jury when necessary to promote justice, including to contradict the witness’s trial testimony.
- Argument concerning admissibility of evidence in the jury’s presence. The trial court did not err by allowing counsel to argue the materiality and admissibility of offered evidence in the jury’s presence before ruling it admissible.
- Hearsay declarations linked to immaterial facts. The challenged declarations were inadmissible hearsay because the surrounding facts were immaterial standing alone and could not be used as a vehicle to admit otherwise incompetent declarations.
- Medical expert testimony based on reading and study. A physician may give expert testimony based solely on medical reading and study, and may be cross-examined about conflicting theories encountered in that reading.
- Sufficiency of evidence that an instrument caused the abortion. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the respondent produced the abortion with an instrument, even though no instrument marks were found.