New Hampshire v. Merritt
New Hampshire Supreme Court
738 A.2d 343, 143 N.H. 714 (1999)
- Written by Caroline Milne, JD
Facts
Kevin Merritt (defendant) and his girlfriend, Kelly Higgins, used two stolen credit cards to make purchases at several stores in a single day. Each time a purchase was made, Higgins handed the credit card to the sales clerk and signed the credit card slip, and Merritt was present nearby. The sales clerk at the Jordan Marsh department store told police that Higgins purchased jewelry and that Merritt was present in the store. At American Eagle, Higgins purchased men’s clothing. The sales clerk testified that Merritt stood by the counter as Higgins paid for the clothes and that Merritt “did all the talking.” Merritt also spoke extensively with the sales clerks at three jewelry stores. At J.C. Penney, Higgins purchased a pair of men’s work boots and a men’s diamond ring, both of which Merritt selected. The sales clerk in the jewelry department testified that staff spoke mainly with Merritt before the sale was made. Merritt was indicted for fraudulent use of credit cards (four counts) on the theory that Merritt acted in concert with Higgins. The jury convicted Merritt as charged. Merritt appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of fraudulent use of credit cards.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Broderick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
