Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
The State of New Hampshire v. John Fortune
Date: 09-10-2024
Case Number: 2022-0397
Judge: Hornigberg
Court: Superior Court, Sullivan County, New hampshire
Plaintiff's Attorney: Sullivan County New Hampshire County Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Newport Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
John Fortune, was convicted following a jury trial of selling a controlled drug resulting in death. He appealed arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to dismiss the death resulting charge for improper venue; and (2) refusing to give a requested lesser-included offense instruction.
* * *
The victim both consumed the drugs and died in Sullivan County. The defendant was indicted in Sullivan County. Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges arguing that venue was improper in Sullivan County. The Trial Court (Tucker, J.) denied the motion. Following a jury trial in Sullivan County, the defendant was convicted on the death resulting charge.
* * *
The trial court's conclusion that venue is predicated on where parts of an offense occur is contrary to the text of RSA 602:1. RSA 602:1 requires defendants to be prosecuted and tried "in the county" where "the offense was committed." RSA 602:1 (emphasis added). It further permits venue in counties where "parts of an offense are committed." Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, "if parts of an offense are committed in more than one county . . . the offense shall be deemed to have been committed . . . in either county . . . thereof." Id. (emphasis added). In other words, for each county where part of an offense is committed by a defendant, venue is proper.
* * *
The defendant sold a controlled drug to the victim in Belknap County contrary to RSA 318-B:2, I-a. RSA 318-B:2, I-a provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport or possess with intent to sell, dispense, compound, package or repackage (1) any substance which he represents to be a controlled drug or controlled drug analog, or (2) any preparation containing a substance which he represents to be a controlled drug or controlled drug analog, except as authorized in this chapter.
State v. Fortune, 2024 N.H. 52, 2022-0397 (N.H. Sep 10, 2024)
Newport, New Hampshire selling drugs resulting in death criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.
John Fortune, was convicted following a jury trial of selling a controlled drug resulting in death. He appealed arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to dismiss the death resulting charge for improper venue; and (2) refusing to give a requested lesser-included offense instruction.
* * *
The victim both consumed the drugs and died in Sullivan County. The defendant was indicted in Sullivan County. Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges arguing that venue was improper in Sullivan County. The Trial Court (Tucker, J.) denied the motion. Following a jury trial in Sullivan County, the defendant was convicted on the death resulting charge.
* * *
The trial court's conclusion that venue is predicated on where parts of an offense occur is contrary to the text of RSA 602:1. RSA 602:1 requires defendants to be prosecuted and tried "in the county" where "the offense was committed." RSA 602:1 (emphasis added). It further permits venue in counties where "parts of an offense are committed." Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, "if parts of an offense are committed in more than one county . . . the offense shall be deemed to have been committed . . . in either county . . . thereof." Id. (emphasis added). In other words, for each county where part of an offense is committed by a defendant, venue is proper.
* * *
The defendant sold a controlled drug to the victim in Belknap County contrary to RSA 318-B:2, I-a. RSA 318-B:2, I-a provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport or possess with intent to sell, dispense, compound, package or repackage (1) any substance which he represents to be a controlled drug or controlled drug analog, or (2) any preparation containing a substance which he represents to be a controlled drug or controlled drug analog, except as authorized in this chapter.
State v. Fortune, 2024 N.H. 52, 2022-0397 (N.H. Sep 10, 2024)
Outcome:
Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of The State of New Hampshire v. John Fortune?
The outcome was: Reversed and remanded.
Which court heard The State of New Hampshire v. John Fortune?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Sullivan County, New hampshire, NH. The presiding judge was Hornigberg.
Who were the attorneys in The State of New Hampshire v. John Fortune?
Plaintiff's attorney: Sullivan County New Hampshire County Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Newport Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was The State of New Hampshire v. John Fortune decided?
This case was decided on September 10, 2024.