New Hampshire: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)


Examples from State v. Caswell, 146 N.H. 243, 769 A.2d 387 (2001)

. . . .

We next consider the defendant's argument that the trial court erred by admitting Sergeant Bourque's testimony to establish that the Intoxilyzer was properly certified and operating properly at the time of the test. RSA 265:85 (Supp. 2000) provides that "no tests of . . . breath authorized by RSA 265:84, IV shall be considered as evidence in any proceeding before any . . . court unless such test is performed in accordance with methods prescribed by the commissioner of the department of health and human services." These rules are codified in New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Part He-P 2207, and became effective April 1, 1996. As a result, we review the evidence presented at trial in accordance with these rules.

. . . .

Rule He-P 2207.05 (a) provides that "the forensic breath testing supervisor II shall conduct a preventive maintenance check on each approved instrument 6 months after the initial check and at 6 month intervals." This rule further states that the "the forensic breath testing supervisor II shall certify the accuracy of the approved instrument by signing and dating the preventive maintenance check form, pursuant to RSA 265:90, II." N.H. Admin. Rules, He-P 2207.05 (d). It is incumbent upon the State to establish that the breath test has been conducted in accordance with the rules, including the successful completion of the required preventive maintenance check and the certification of the Intoxilyzer's accuracy. See RSA 265:85, IV (Supp. 2000).

. . . .

There are no administrative rules or statutes governing the admissibility of radar evidence. It is a "fundamental principle that the results of scientific tests are inadmissible unless there is proof that the test device was operating accurately and that the test was performed by qualified individuals." State v. Ahern, 122 N.H. 744, 745, 449 A.2d 1224 (1982). "This imposes a responsibility upon the proponent seeking admission of such evidence to establish the prima facie reliability of any test results." State v. Lee, 134 N.H. 392, 395, 593 A.2d 235 (1991).

. . . .

N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 16, http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-16.htm.

Rule 16. Briefs.

. . . .

(3) So far as possible, the brief of the moving party on the merits shall contain in the order here indicated:

    (a) A table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases listed alphabetically, a table of statutes and other authorities, with references to the pages of the briefs where they are cited.

. . . .

    (c) The constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances, rules, or regulations involved in the case, setting them out verbatim, and giving their citation. If the provisions involved are lengthy, their citation alone will suffice at that point, and their pertinent text shall be set forth in an appendix.

. . . .

    (f) The argument, exhibiting clearly the points of fact and of law being presented, citing the authorities relied upon.

. . . .

(9) All references in a brief or memorandum of law to the appendix or to the record must be accompanied by the appropriate page number.

Citations to Supreme Court of the United States cases that cannot be made to the official United States Reports or to the Supreme Court Reporter shall include the month, day, and year of decision or a reference to United States Law Week. Citations to other federal decisions not presently reported shall identify the court, docket number, and date.

Citations to the decisions of this court may be to the New Hampshire Reports only. Citations to other State court decisions may either be: (a) to the official report and to the West Reporter system, with the year of decision; or (b) to the West Reporter only, in which case the citation should identify the State court by name or level, and should mention the year of decision.

. . . .