# State v. Wong

> Supreme Court of New Hampshire · October 26, 1984 · 125 N.H. 610

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8049689

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of New Hampshire v. Steven P. Wong The State of New Hampshire v. Joel Grindle
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- **Decided:** October 26, 1984
- **Citations:** 125 N.H. 610; 486 A.2d 262; 1984 N.H. LEXIS 413
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by King
- **Judges:** Batchelder, Douglas, Grindle, King
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8049689

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, under RSA 630:3, I, II, the culpability requirement of negligent homicide may be satisfied either by showing that a person caused the death of another negligently or by establishing that the person caused the death in the course of driving while under the infl…
- holding drunken driving in violation of statute is not merely malum prohibitum, but is malum in se
- rejecting overbreadth argument where, “[i]n prohibiting a person from causing death as a consequence of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, [the statute] does not infringe a protected freedom”
- rejecting overbreadth argument where, “[i]n prohibiting a person from causing *436 death as a consequence of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, [the statute] does not infringe a protected freedom”
- concluding that operating an automobile while in a state of intoxication is per se negligence

## Opinion text

King, C.J.,
with whom Batchelder, J., joins, dissenting in Grindle: While I agree with the majority’s analysis of section II of the negligent homicide statute, RSA 630:3, II, and the disposition of Grindle’s sufficiency claim, I am unable to join in the court’s reaffirmation of State v. Cornelius, 122 N.H. 925 , 452 A.2d 464 (1982), in part III, A of the opinion. For the reasons set forth in Justice Batchelder’s dissent in State v. Cornelius, supra, at 929-31 , 452 A.2d at 467-68 , in which I concurred, I continue to believe that when a breath test is administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer, the defendant has a due process right under part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution to have a second sample preserved for independent analysis. Accordingly, the results of a breathalyzer test should be inadmissible unless the State preserves a second breath sample or its functional equivalent for independent testing by the defendant. I would therefore vacate the judgment of the superior court in Grindle and remand for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8049689. Public record. Not legal advice.