*1 Hillsbоrough No. 6392 Hampshire M. of New Denis Vachon 31,
May Rudman, Warren B. and Robert V. attorney general, Johnson II, assistant for the State. attorney general(Mr. orally), Johnson Sheehan, Bass Green & E. (Mr. Phinney, Higgins James for the defendant. Higgins orally) trial before jury-waived from a Appeal Lampron, *2 J. guilty. a The com- in verdict of which resulted
Loughlin, J. to the wilfully contributed that the defendant plaint charged by selling in of оf a minor violation RSA 169:32 delinquency obscene 14-year-old a button with girl to be sold to a causing or Masturbation”, material, the Not namely, slogan “Copulation to exceрtions her to be a minor. Defendant’s knowing the^ grounds to on the that motion dismiss pretrial denial of his law, that he as matter of and button not obscene a the trial, the speedy his tо a admission right been denied had error, that the prejudicial constituted of certain evidence to at the close of the State’s his motion dismiss denial of to of werе reserved guilty and the verdict improper, case was and transferred. 1972) “Any provides part in as follows:
RSA 169:32 of having custody or control person or parent guardian or еlse, wilfully child, knowingly who shall or anyone a or abet, at, aid, cause, knowingly or connive or has or encourage, any promote, or contribute produce, child, dоne act to or a may punished by fine delinquency of such to the imprisonment hundred dollars or of not more than five year chapter, both.” Section of not more than one or this for material, “delinquent “[a]ny defines a child” as insofar as any any city law of state or or town child who violates this injure or deports endanger or who so himself to оrdinance as provides or morals of himself or Section 26 the health others.” to in chapter the of this are be construed provisions of their intended to minors from light purрose protect injurious to deportment lead them might influences which Lemelin, 101 N.H. their health or morals. See State v. to to Report of Commission Recommend Laws, Criminal сomments at 81 of Codification alley” in Shop” a “Head “back operated a beads, things he sold “all kinds of like Manchester where 26, 1969, minor posters.” July On a few and dresses a accompanied by girl of years age, then question, in a shop button seeking purchase went to this friend week. previous her friend purchased like that a card on а display around and found velvet They looked picked pin bearing The involved out a minor counter. it to someone in the showed described She complaint. slogan know, store, him name she does in the whose paid out to eat it. The two then went cents for girls twenty-five were in A later a Manchester. they rectory priest them, “saw” the full its meaning рin, explained visiting it At a the defendant was and took trial away. jury-waived house of correction to 30 in the found sentenced days guilty, and fined $100.00. the crime element of that an еssential defendant argues of a minor proof contributing the minor’s resulted an act adjudication charged fact court held “that has
delinquency. recently in court a the minor had not found proceed delinquent *3 Cross, 111 State v. under 169 immaterial.” is ings chapter 22, 24, 880, result has A similar (1971). 882 A.2d 274 Blount, 60 State v. been reached in other jurisdictions. many 36, 27, 23, 38 A.L.R.3d (1972); A.2d 18 286 N.J. 13, RSA ch. (1945). § 69-70 43 at (1968); 824 C.J.S. Infants but more 169 not intеnded protect delinquents, only minors from nondelinquent becoming importantly prevent State, 659, 389 v. Tenn. S.W.2d Lovvron 215 delinquents. (1965). 252 is best purpose accomplished by protecting to actual the latter lead them from influences which might York, 390 v. v. State Cross New delinquency. supra; Ginsberg 1274, 629, 640-41, 195, 204-05, Ct. U.S. L. Ed. 88 S. 20 1972), violation of RSA To sustain a the (Supp. the the acts of defendant need could State only prove to cause found to contribute reasonably by the minor herself or others. the morals of endangering 134, Locks, 94 The State Ariz. P.2d 241 need v. act has an that thе defendant’s certain absolutely prove the to cause minor to lead unmistakable an tendency Miller, idle, dissolute, life. v. 145 Cal. or immoral People App. 603, 473, 477-78, 607 (1956). 302 P.2d the was intrоduced the Evidence of slogan pin matter of We cannot hold erroneous as a law State. finding in the verdict button and ruling implied guilty within the standards to be obscene minors. was applied York, 195, 390 U.S. New Ed. 2d Ginsberg 1972); S. Ct. 1274 (Supp. RSA 571-A:1 see RSA 571- B:1 We hold also that the trial court could properly find and rule that the mere possession of the button injurious could be to the minor’s moral well-being by tending to convince her that copulation by a 14-year-old girl was an acceptable act. Similarly, wearing of the could lead to immoral thereby solicitations endangering her morals those of others. Blount, Miller State v. People supra; Locks, 94 Ariz. State v. N.J. 382 P.2d Hixson, 241 (1972). 16 Ariz. App. State v. P.2d
It is uncontested that the defendant was in contrоl of the premises where the sale was made. There was evidence that a girl friend of this minor had previously purchased there a pin “like that”. pins These were displayed on a card on a counter. The trial court saw minor and opportun- had an ity to conclude whether her minority should have appar- ent to whoever pin. sold the The court could find defendant aware of the character pins of the which were being offered for sale and sold his establishment. is charged wilfully with contributing delinquency оf a minor selling or causing to be sold to her the question. button in To act is “to act voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident or other innoсent Contreras, reason.” 105 R.I. State v. 536- *4 (1969); 37, 612, 253 A.2d accord, 620 Reznick, 75 v. People (1946). 832, 838, App. 952, Cal. 171 P.2d 956 The trial court could properly find and rule sale of this button to the minor The was intentionаl. trial court could further conclude that the type seller of this of button should have realized that it would tend to be harmful to the of morals 1972). purchaser or others. RSA would warrаnt a finding and that the ruling defendant wil- fully the delinquency contributed to of charged this minor as 499, in the complaint. See State v. N.C. 173 276 Sparrow, (1970); 848, 851, 897 S.E.2d 31 A.L.R.3d 854-60 (1970). exception
Defendant’s of evidence of a admission prior purchase in shop by defendant’s the minor’s friend girl of a similar is overruled. The evidence wás admissible
243 or in the sale com- of mistake accident the absence show 241, Locks, 134, 137, 94 Ariz. of. State v. 382 P.2d plained indication undue There is no (1963). 243 prejudice Davis, from Bunten v. to the defendant its admission. resulted 311, McCormick, 304, 16, 133 A. Evidence N.H. 20 82 ed. 438-41 (2d also maintаins his constitutional right occurred trial has violated. The sale on
a July speedy 16, 1969, 1969, 26, filed December on complaint tried convicted in the district court soon he was and Thе was called for trial court thereafter. superior appeal 4, for con- Defendant’s asked a 1970. counsel on November 1970, November, two additional and therеafter tinuance 1971, 8, him. On he filed were filed January charges against 17, 1971, motion to which was heard on a dismiss February 11, The denied. was heard on 1971. This case June not a United history delays. “purposeful oppressive” Ewell, 116, 120, 631, 627, v. 383 15 L. Ed. States U.S. 773, 403, State v. 109 86 S. Ct. Coolidge, 547, 554 (1969). 260 A.2d overruled.
Exceptions Grimes, dissented; the others concurred. J., Grimes, J., dissenting: view the the court
In statute as construеd is void my It “in men for forbids acts terms so vague vagueness. must at its of common meaning intelligence necessarily guess General differ as to v. Constr. its Connally application.” 322, 328, Co., L. U.S. Ed. 46 S. Ct. Albers, State v. 113 N.H. 303 A.2d Ventures, Brewer, v.
Entertainment Inc. 306 F. (M.D. Supp. Coon 1969); 1970); P.2d (Ore. Ala. App. Cupp, Paulsen, 491 (Ore. 1969); P.2d Hodges, Legal Protection, For Rev. 679 Framework Child Colum. statute, I with agree lofty
Although purрoses they be cannot constitutionally accomplished by placing persons what in a not conduct knowing prohibited position No able to what is not. one has bеen determine what conduct tends to of the defined as produce delinquency type deport ment “as to the health or morals of himself injure endanger or others”. RSA 1972). 169:2 A сitizen can never (Supp. know whether act or some omission of his possibly, “might just sometime, somewhere lead to some a delin child’s becoming 10 Ohio 155 N.E.2d quent”. Crary, Ops. 408 U.S. Ed. Rockford, Grayned S. Ct. I would our more avoid construe statute thus narrowly constitutional statute its terms invalidity. requires the defendant has done that “knowingly proof act to or contribute to the any delinquency produce, promote There of such RSA must child”. other words be criminal intent. See 31 A.L.R.3d some 848, 860 I believe that it must not only proved the defendant but committed act also knowingly that he knew it that was an act which was likely produce in the child.
In there this case is no evidence whatever defen button, dant he sold knew it had been sold to a minоr, he authorized such or that he sales minors even in the the time He store at sale. was in a shown to have the criminal intent and case necessary him from of an such as this it cannot be acts imputed not directed him. Justices, agent 537, Opinion of Commonwealth v. Pa. Super. Kempisty, § 84 (1961). Criminal Law 22 C.J.S.