No. 18-7961
David Martinko v. New Hampshire
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: absurdity-doctrine battery battery-continuous-course-of-conduct continuous-course-of-conduct criminal-offense criminal-offenses criminal-offenses-absurdity-doctrine-legislative-s criminal-procedure double-jeopardy due-process judicial-review legal-doctrine legislative-supremacy statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2019-05-23
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Should the "Absurdity Doctrine" be limited or abandoned in criminal offenses altogether in order to protect legislative supremacy?
II. When states enact statutes to criminalize a "pattern" or "continuous course" of conduct, can they then break a single pattern into multiple patterns?
III. What is the appropriate test to be applied to double jeopardy challenges where a single statute is charged numerous times?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should the 'Absurdity Doctrine' be limited or abandoned in criminal offenses altogether to protect legislative supremacy?
Docket Entries
2019-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-04-22
Reply of petitioner David Martinko filed.
2019-04-18
Brief of respondent New Hampshire in opposition filed.
2019-03-19
Response Requested. (Due April 18, 2019)
2019-03-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.
2019-03-07
Waiver of right of respondent New Hampshire to respond filed.
2018-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 18, 2019)
Attorneys
David Martinko
David Martinko — Petitioner
New Hampshire
Laura E. B. Lombardi — New Hampshire Department of Justice, Respondent