State v. Tetrault

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding witness had a sound basis for her knowledge where she learned it from her adoptive parents, who had been told by her aunt
• “The jury [has] no duty to perform in the assessment of the penalty and therefore no occasion to know what it might be.”
• court never reached issue whether hearsay exception for matters of family history was made inapplicable by fact of child's adoption, but parents’ statements about her birth date were admissible because source of information fully disclosed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Mitchell
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1997-07-23· cited 83×
• State v. Brunette
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1985-11-05· cited 18×
• State v. Avery
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1985-03-07· cited 13×
• State v. St. John
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1980-01-31· cited 11×
• State v. Keyes
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1974-07-19· cited 10×
• State v. Raymond
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1962-05-25· cited 9×
• State v. Ebelt
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1981-03-11· cited 8×
• State v. Tayag
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2009-06-17· cited 5×
• State v. Beede
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1986-11-07· cited 4×
• State of New Hampshire v. Brian Eldridge
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2020-02-19