Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted of voting in more than one state during the 2016 general election. He maintained residences in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts and was alleged to have voted in Holderness, New Hampshire by absentee ballot and in Belmont, Massachusetts in person. The State introduced evidence of his voting history in both states from 1996 to 2018 and sought to exclude statements by an acquaintance, William Botelho, who had previously admitted to voting in the defendant's name in Massachusetts.The Grafton County Superior Court allowed the State to admit the defendant’s prior voting records under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) and excluded Botelho’s statements as inadmissible propensity evidence, also denying the defendant’s request for a Richards hearing regarding Botelho’s potential testimony. After a jury found the defendant guilty, the Superior Court denied his post-trial motions for dismissal based on territorial jurisdiction, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to set aside the verdict.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that the Superior Court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior voting history because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value, especially since the prior alleged acts were nearly identical to the charged crime. The court also held that evidence of Botelho’s confession to voting in the defendant’s name in the 2016 election was not evidence of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) and should not have been categorically excluded. The Supreme Court further ruled that, if Botelho asserts his Fifth Amendment rights on remand, the trial court must hold a Richards hearing.The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motions regarding territorial jurisdiction, sufficiency, and weight of the evidence, but reversed the conviction due to the evidentiary errors and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Rosen" on Justia Law

The defendant, a patient at a community mental health center, was informed by his career counselor that he had been dismissed from classes at UNH Manchester and would be removed by security if he returned to campus. Distressed by this news, he insisted he would still attend his evening class. In communications with his counselor and later his therapist, he reiterated his plan to attend, culminating in a statement asking if “doing a mass shooting” would be required for him to get what he wanted. When told his statement would be reported, he claimed it was a figure of speech. The counselor reported his comments to the treatment team and local police, in accordance with center policy. Law enforcement notified UNH Manchester, which took security precautions, and later apprehended the defendant. He was indicted for criminal threatening based on his statements.Prior to trial in the Superior Court, the defendant sought to exclude the testimony of his counselor and therapist regarding his statements, asserting the therapist-patient privilege, and also moved to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. The Superior Court denied both motions, finding an “essential need” for the privileged communications and concluding that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty. The jury convicted the defendant of criminal threatening.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the trial court properly allowed admission of the privileged communications and whether the evidence was sufficient for conviction. The court held that the State demonstrated an “essential need” to pierce the therapist-patient privilege due to the centrality of the communications to the charged offense and the compelling public safety interest in investigating threats of mass violence. The court also found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in reckless disregard for causing fear, terror, or public inconvenience. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

A married couple living in New Hampshire began divorce proceedings after a long-term marriage. The husband had previously suffered a spinal cord injury in Ontario, Canada, before meeting his wife. As a result of lawsuits related to the injury, he acquired two annuities through structured settlements: the first before the marriage and the second during the marriage. After moving to New Hampshire, the couple used the second annuity to support their household. Upon divorce, the wife sought an equitable share of the annuities, and the husband requested to exclude the annuities from division or, alternatively, sought alimony if division occurred.The Circuit Court (Nashua Family Division) found the first annuity, which was acquired before marriage, should remain with the husband, but divided the second annuity equally between the parties, as it was obtained during the marriage. The court denied both parties’ requests for alimony. The husband moved for reconsideration, arguing that Ontario law precluded division of the second annuity and challenging the denial of alimony. The trial court denied the motion, as did the wife’s motion.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that New Hampshire law, not Ontario law, governs the classification of the second annuity as marital property because New Hampshire had the most significant relationship to the marriage at the time of divorce. Under New Hampshire law, the second annuity is divisible marital property. However, the court concluded the trial court erred by not considering the impact of dividing the annuity on the husband’s income and his health-related earning capacity when ruling on alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed the division of property, vacated the denial of alimony, and remanded for further proceedings on alimony. View "In the Matter of Whitehead & Whitehead" on Justia Law

A seller owned a twelve-unit apartment complex and entered into a written contract to sell the property to a buyer for $1.3 million, with a closing date set on or before November 30, 2021. The contract contained a financing contingency requiring the buyer to provide written proof of financing or inability to obtain financing by November 26, 2021, stating that “time is of the essence.” After the buyer’s bank conditionally approved financing, but anticipated a delay in the appraisal, the buyer informed the seller and attempted to extend the financing deadline. While the seller did not sign proposed written extensions, both parties continued to communicate about closing logistics, including scheduling a closing in December. On December 3, the seller terminated the contract, expressing unwillingness to proceed with the sale.The Superior Court of Hillsborough County denied the seller’s motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the argument that the buyer’s failure to meet the financing deadline constituted a breach entitling the seller to terminate. The court also denied the seller’s motions in limine to exclude evidence of oral communications and closing agent emails. After a jury trial, the jury found the buyer had not materially breached the contract, that the parties had agreed to extend the closing, and that the seller had materially breached. The trial court then awarded specific performance, ordering the sale to proceed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed. The court held that the seller’s conduct after the missed financing deadline raised a material factual dispute about whether the seller waived its right to declare a default. The court also found that the trial court properly admitted evidence of oral communications and that the longstanding presumption favoring specific performance in land sale contracts applied, even where the buyer was an investor. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed. View "J&C Properties v. Rayster Realty" on Justia Law

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse committed by the defendant against a complainant when she was between the ages of four and ten during visits to the defendant’s home. The complainant testified that the defendant engaged in multiple acts of sexual assault over several years, including threats to her and her family to ensure her silence. After the complainant disclosed the abuse to her mother, law enforcement became involved, which led to the defendant’s indictment on multiple charges, including pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault, felonious sexual assault, and criminal threatening.In Superior Court, the defendant moved for in camera review of the complainant’s counseling records, which the court partially granted. The State successfully moved to allow the complainant to testify by two-way live video feed from outside the defendant’s presence, arguing that testifying in front of the defendant would cause her trauma and render her unavailable. During the trial, the complainant testified remotely. After the State rested, several charges were dismissed or nol prossed by agreement, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant on the remaining counts.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that allowing the complainant to testify remotely, outside the defendant’s presence, violated his confrontation right under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution as interpreted in State v. Warren. The court found that this right requires a face-to-face, in-person meeting between the accused and the witness. The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for one pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault charge involving sexual intercourse, as the complainant’s testimony did not establish that the acts occurred over the required statutory period. The court reversed the conviction on that charge and remanded the remaining convictions for further proceedings, vacating the trial court’s discovery order in part for additional review in light of a recent precedent. View "State v. Brousseau" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on neighboring parcels of land in Moultonborough, New Hampshire, near Lake Winnipesaukee. The plaintiff owns Lot 3, which abuts Park Lane, and the defendant is a nonprofit club that owns nearby roadways, paths, and a lakefront beach area reserved for its members. Both parties’ properties originated from a 1959 subdivision, with subsequent conveyances and subdivisions altering the land’s configuration. The plaintiff asserted that Lot 3 retained rights to use the defendant’s roadways and beach area, either through implied or prescriptive easement, based on prior deeds and historical use by Lot 3’s owners.The Superior Court for Carroll County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It determined that Lot 3 was not part of a common scheme of development that would entitle it to membership benefits in the club, including the use of the roadways and beach. The trial court found no express or implied easements in the relevant chain of title for Lot 3 and concluded that the plaintiff had not shown twenty years of adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use necessary to establish a prescriptive easement. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and applied de novo review to the legal questions. The court held that Lot 3, by virtue of the deed referencing the 1972 subdivision plan showing Park Lane and Far Echo Road as boundaries, has an implied easement as a matter of law to use those roadways. However, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment regarding claims to use other roadways and the Lot 200 beach area, finding no implied or prescriptive easement rights for Lot 3. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Martin v. Far Echo Harbor Club" on Justia Law

The case involved a traffic stop in Salem, New Hampshire, where a police officer, upon detecting a strong odor of alcohol in a vehicle, interacted with its passengers. The defendant, seated in the back, became verbally aggressive toward the officer, yelling and cursing. After being ordered out of the vehicle, the defendant stepped toward the officer, pointed at him, and shoved his finger into the officer’s chest. When the officer attempted to arrest him, the defendant pulled away, struggled, and resisted being handcuffed. A portion of this encounter was captured on video by another passenger.Following these events, the defendant was charged in the Rockingham County Superior Court with misdemeanor counts of simple assault and resisting arrest. At trial, the jury was presented with video evidence and heard testimony from the officers involved. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges for insufficient evidence, but the trial court (St. Hilaire, J.) denied these motions. The jury found the defendant guilty on both counts, leading to the present appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The defendant argued that appellate review of video evidence should be de novo, asserting that the court was in as good a position as the jury to interpret such evidence. The court rejected this argument, holding that video evidence must be reviewed under the traditional standard: all evidence, including video and live testimony, is viewed in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying this standard, the court found sufficient evidence to support both convictions. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that his conduct was de minimis, noting it was not preserved or plain error. The court affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

The respondent was charged with two separate attempted aggravated felonious sexual assaults involving different victims. After being declared incompetent to stand trial, the State dismissed the criminal charges and instead filed civil petitions seeking his commitment as a sexually violent predator under New Hampshire law. The Superior Court held two evidentiary hearings—one in 2023 and one in 2024—to determine whether the State could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the charged acts, and to assess whether his incompetence affected the outcome of these hearings.The Superior Court (Will, J.) ruled that the applicable statute did not require either party to bear the burden of proving whether the respondent’s incompetence affected the outcome of the hearings. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the acts in both hearings and that his incompetence did not substantially interfere with his ability to assist counsel. After the 2024 hearing, the court alternatively found that even if the respondent’s incompetence had substantially interfered, the State’s evidence was so strong that his limitations could not have had a substantial impact on the proceedings. The respondent appealed these findings, arguing the State should have borne the burden of proof regarding the effect of incompetence.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the appeals. It held that the State bears the burden under RSA 135-E:5, II to prove that a respondent’s incompetence did not substantially impact the outcome of the hearing. The court clarified that the State can satisfy this burden either by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent’s incompetence did not substantially interfere with his ability to assist counsel, or by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the strength of its case was such that the respondent’s limitations could not have substantially impacted the proceedings. The Supreme Court vacated the order from the 2023 hearing and remanded for further proceedings, but it affirmed the order from the 2024 hearing. View "State v. Levier" on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who was accused of touching a minor inappropriately during a trip to the store in October 2021. Two months after the alleged incident, the victim made a separate allegation against her father, claiming he had broken her half-sister’s leg, based on a social media post. This accusation was later determined to be false after investigation, with the victim’s mother and a counselor concluding the report was made due to the victim’s misunderstanding and feelings toward her father. The defendant was indicted on multiple counts of sexual assault and simple assault, with events alleged to have occurred in Gilford and Laconia.The Superior Court (Attorri, J.) presided over the trial. Before trial, the defendant sought to cross-examine the victim about her false accusation against her father, arguing it was relevant to her credibility. The initial ruling permitted this, but upon the State’s motion for reconsideration, the court excluded the evidence, finding it not probative of the victim’s character for truthfulness because she believed the accusation was true when made. At trial, the State introduced limited evidence regarding the defendant’s alcohol consumption on the day of the alleged assaults. When the jury inquired about the locations of the alleged offenses, the court declined to provide the indictments, instructing the jury to rely on its recollection of the evidence.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding cross-examination on the false allegation, as it lacked sufficient probative value and risked confusing the jury. The court also ruled that the trial judge’s response to the jury’s question was proper and that any error in admitting evidence of the defendant’s alcohol consumption was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Hodgdon" on Justia Law

The defendant owned a house on Farm Island, New Hampshire, near a summer camp with which he had a history of disputes. After hearing a group outside his house at night, he yelled at them and, when unable to reach the police, left a voicemail for the camp, using profane language and stating, “you better get them the f**k out of here or I will shoot them.” He also accused the group of damaging his property. The State charged him with harassment, alleging that his communication constituted a threat to the life or safety of another, made with the purpose to annoy or alarm.The Superior Court of Carroll County held a jury trial. During trial, the State introduced the voicemail, evidence of the contentious relationship between the defendant and the camp, and testimony from camp staff and police. Over the defendant’s objections, the court admitted testimony from a camp director about security measures the camp undertook in response to the message, including ceasing use of part of the island and enhancing security. The defendant moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence of the required mental state; the court denied the motion. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant acted with the purpose to annoy or alarm and that the communication constituted a true threat as defined by federal law. However, the court found that admitting testimony about the camp’s security response was error under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403, as its limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This error was not harmless. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Owen" on Justia Law