Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In December 2020, Raymond Felts' wife was struck and injured by a motor vehicle while walking across North Main Street in Rochester within a painted crosswalk that lacked warning signs or signals. She later died from her injuries. Felts, individually and as executor of his wife's estate, filed a lawsuit in January 2022, alleging negligence and violation of RSA 231:90-:92 by the City of Rochester for failing to design, monitor, and maintain the crosswalk safely, including the absence of warning signs or signals. The City moved to dismiss the claims, arguing limited liability under RSA 231:92 for injuries arising from the construction, maintenance, or repair of public highways.The Superior Court partially granted and denied the City's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that "highway" under RSA 231:92 includes crosswalks but not pedestrian warning signs or signals, thus dismissing the negligence claim related to the crosswalk itself but allowing the claim regarding the City's failure to install warning signs or signals to proceed. The City moved for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo, focusing on statutory interpretation. The court concluded that "highways" under RSA 231:92 includes pedestrian warning signs, crossing signals, and other traffic controls. The court reasoned that the statutory language and legislative intent support a broad interpretation of "highways" to include these elements, which are integral to the safe use of public roads. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court's ruling that RSA 231:92 does not apply to the plaintiff's claim regarding the City's failure to install pedestrian warning signs and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Felts v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law

In August 2019, law enforcement began investigating the Bradley family following a referral from the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families. The investigation revealed that one of the children had recorded an audio conversation between the defendant, Deborah Ann Bradley, and her husband, Kenneth Bradley, discussing inappropriate behavior by Mr. Bradley. The recording was found on an iPad during a search of the Bradleys' home. The defendant was later charged with multiple counts, including accomplice to falsifying physical evidence and tampering with witnesses.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to exclude the audio recording, concluding that the spousal privilege under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 504 did not apply to the recording itself, only to testimony about confidential marital communications. The court reasoned that the rule does not bar the introduction of the recording or testimony about it.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the spousal privilege in Rule 504 precludes only testimony about confidential marital communications and does not extend to other types of evidence, such as audio recordings. The court emphasized that the plain language of Rule 504 limits the privilege to testimony and does not support a broader interpretation that would exclude all evidence related to marital communications. The court declined to make its ruling prospective only, as it was based on the plain language of the rule and did not alter the scope of the privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The defendant, Christian Cummings, was convicted of negligent homicide for the death of his 17-month-old daughter, K.C., who had only one kidney and lived in unsanitary conditions. K.C. developed a severe lice infestation, a stomach virus, and a urinary tract infection (UTI) that led to probable urosepsis, dehydration, and an electrolyte imbalance. Despite visible signs of illness, the defendant did not seek medical care for K.C., who was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead.The Hillsborough County Grand Jury indicted the defendant on two counts of negligent homicide. The first count alleged urosepsis as the sole cause of death, while the second count alleged a combination of urosepsis, dehydration, and/or electrolyte imbalance. The trial court dismissed the first count but allowed the second count to proceed. The jury convicted the defendant on the second count, and he was also found guilty of reckless conduct and child endangerment.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and addressed three main arguments by the defendant: (1) the trial court's response to a jury question constituted plain error, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the court's response, and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence. The court concluded that the trial court did not commit plain error, as any potential error did not affect the trial's outcome. The court also found that the defendant's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, as the failure to object did not prejudice the result. Finally, the court determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of negligent homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

AFSCME Council 93 filed a petition to certify a bargaining unit consisting of thirteen employees from the Town of Barnstead’s police and fire departments. The Town objected, arguing that the employees' duties were too dissimilar to share a community of interest. The case was submitted to the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) for a decision on the written record.A PELRB hearing officer approved the proposed bargaining unit, concluding that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest to negotiate jointly. The officer noted that all employees worked in public safety, were subject to the Town’s employment terms, and interacted with each other at work. The Town requested a review, challenging the community of interest determination. The PELRB denied the request and certified AFSCME as the bargaining unit’s exclusive representative. The Town then appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the PELRB’s decision, focusing on whether the police and fire department employees shared a community of interest under RSA 273-A:8, I. The Court found that the PELRB’s decision was primarily based on the fact that all employees followed the Town’s personnel policies, which was insufficient to establish a community of interest. The Court noted differences in work schedules, duties, responsibilities, and organizational structures between the police and fire departments. The Court concluded that the record did not support the PELRB’s finding of a community of interest and reversed the PELRB’s decision approving the proposed bargaining unit. View "Appeal of Town of Barnstead" on Justia Law

The defendant, Nicholas H. Brooks, was convicted of two counts of simple assault following a jury trial. The incident occurred on February 17, 2022, when Brooks, working as a substitute educator, attempted to take a toy from a student who was causing a disturbance in the classroom. The student refused to comply, swore at Brooks, and allegedly lunged at him. Brooks then grabbed the student's sweatshirt and pushed him against a wall. The jury saw video evidence of the incident and heard testimony from multiple witnesses.The Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) denied Brooks' request to instruct the jury on the "special responsibilities" defense for the charges on which he was convicted. The court allowed the instruction only for the charge related to grabbing the student's hand. Brooks was acquitted of the second-degree assault charge and the first simple assault charge but was convicted of the second and third simple assault charges. Brooks appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, admission and exclusion of certain testimonies, and handling of the complainant's school records.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in not providing the special responsibilities defense instruction for all charges. The court clarified that the correct standard of review for such a denial is de novo, not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. The court determined that there was "some evidence" to support a rational finding that Brooks was acting as a person with special responsibilities throughout the incident. Consequently, the court reversed Brooks' simple assault convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also addressed other evidentiary issues, finding errors in the trial court's admission of certain testimonies and exclusion of a student's statement. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael R. Smith, was convicted by a jury in Superior Court on two counts of theft by unauthorized taking and three counts of attempted theft by unauthorized taking, all under circumstances warranting an extended term of imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the trial court’s determinations regarding his competency and the order of restitution.Initially, the defendant was indicted in June 2018. His counsel filed a motion to determine his competency, which was granted, and a competency evaluation was ordered. The forensic examiner concluded that the defendant was malingering and competent to stand trial. A second evaluation, requested by the defense, also found him competent. The trial court then found the defendant competent based on these evaluations. Later, the defendant chose to represent himself, and the court ordered another evaluation to determine his competency to proceed without counsel. The evaluator found him competent to decide whether to represent himself and to stand trial.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in its competency determinations, as the defendant had been found competent by multiple evaluations, and the defense had effectively stipulated to his competency. The court also found no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the defendant to represent himself, as there was no bona fide doubt about his competency to stand trial. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing based on the defendant’s behavior at trial.Regarding the restitution order, the court found that the amount ordered was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not improperly delegate the calculation of restitution to the Department of Corrections. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Joseph A. Brown requested the disclosure of video footage from the Grafton County House of Corrections under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91-A. The footage included meal preparation and mealtime activities. The Grafton County Department of Corrections denied the request, citing security concerns and privacy issues for inmates. Brown sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the disclosure of the footage.The Superior Court (MacLeod, J.) initially granted the defendant’s motion for expedited declaratory judgment, ruling that the public interest in disclosing the footage was minimal and outweighed by the privacy interests of the inmates and security concerns. The court found that the footage’s disclosure could pose a danger to inmates and staff and would not significantly inform the public about the facility’s operations. Brown’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed without prejudice. The Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the remaining count of Brown’s complaint, concluding that the defendant had either provided the requested records, found no responsive records, or properly withheld records under RSA 91-A:5, IV.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded the case. The court held that the trial court erred by ruling on the privacy interests without viewing the footage or having sufficient information about its content. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether the footage implicated privacy concerns and whether redaction could allow for disclosure without compromising privacy. The case was remanded for further fact-finding and proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Brown v. Grafton Cnty. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

M.T., a 16-year-old juvenile, was charged with simple assault and willful concealment. His parents expressed that they did not feel safe with him at home and requested residential treatment. M.T. was placed in shelter care but was removed due to dangerous behavior, including physical altercations and property damage. The shelter exercised its right to terminate treatment, leading to M.T.'s placement at the Sununu Youth Services Center (SYSC).The Circuit Court held an adjudicatory hearing where M.T. pled true to the charges. The court scheduled a dispositional hearing and, in the interim, heard arguments regarding M.T.'s placement. The juvenile probation and parole officer (JPPO) testified that no alternative placements were available. The court ordered M.T. to be detained at SYSC, citing the lack of less restrictive options and the need for M.T.'s safety and supervision.At the dispositional hearing, the State recommended that M.T. remain at SYSC due to his behavior and the lack of alternative placements. M.T. requested to return to his parents, but the court found this unsuitable. The court committed M.T. to SYSC for the remainder of his minority, emphasizing the need for intensive care and supervision and the unavailability of other options. The court also ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to continue searching for less restrictive placements, including out-of-state options.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in considering the lack of available placements and committing M.T. to SYSC. The court also found that M.T. waived his argument regarding the right to counsel during the Comprehensive Assessment for Treatment (CAT) interview. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

The defendant, Erin Warren, was charged with first-degree assault for failing to seek medical attention for her daughter A.D.'s head wound, and second-degree assault for binding A.D.'s arms. A.D. was admitted to the hospital with a severe, infected head wound and other injuries. The hospital staff reported the case to the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and the Rochester Police Department. A.D. was placed in foster care, where she disclosed further abuse by the defendant.The Superior Court allowed A.D. to testify via one-way video feed outside the defendant's presence, citing potential trauma to A.D. The jury convicted the defendant on both charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that her confrontation rights were violated, among other issues.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that allowing A.D. to testify outside the defendant's presence violated the defendant's right to meet witnesses "face to face" under the New Hampshire Constitution. The court reversed the second-degree assault conviction, finding that A.D.'s testimony was crucial to that charge and its exclusion was not harmless. However, it affirmed the first-degree assault conviction, concluding that other overwhelming evidence supported the verdict.The court also addressed the admissibility of uncharged conduct evidence, finding no error in the trial court's decision to admit it to rebut the defense's suggestibility argument and explain A.D.'s delayed disclosure. The court upheld the trial court's determination of A.D.'s competency to testify and found no error in the in camera review of DCYF and Community Partners records. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault with a firearm following a jury trial. The incident occurred when the defendant returned to his apartment building and was confronted by R.S. about an unpaid debt. An altercation ensued, during which R.S. pushed the defendant, who then stumbled down the stairs and subsequently shot R.S. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, which argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The jury found the defendant guilty, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The court noted that the jury could have found that the push by R.S. was not sufficient to create a reasonable belief that R.S. would cause serious bodily injury. Additionally, the court highlighted that the defendant and R.S. were 30 feet apart at the time of the shooting, and R.S. was unarmed. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the State had disproved the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Perez" on Justia Law