Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The plaintiff, a New Hampshire-based corporation, acquired patents and software from a military contractor and sought to adapt the technology for consumer telecommunications. The defendant, a Finnish multinational, manufactures cellular base stations. In 2015, the parties began discussions about integrating the plaintiff’s software into the defendant’s products. By February 2017, negotiations focused on two main points: a fee for integration work and a lump sum for a perpetual software license. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff alleges both parties orally agreed to a $3 million integration fee and a $20 million license fee. The defendant disputes whether such an oral agreement occurred. The plaintiff continued work based on this understanding. Later, the defendant offered a lower license fee in a draft written contract, which the plaintiff rejected. Eventually, the defendant canceled the project.After cancellation, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Following a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on breach of contract and promissory estoppel, awarding $23 million in damages. The district court, considering the defendant’s statute-of-frauds defense, determined that the core issue was whether the perpetual license agreement could be performed within one year. The court found this, along with other issues, raised novel questions of New Hampshire law without binding precedent, and certified three questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the certified questions. It held that, under New Hampshire law, obligations imposed by a perpetual intellectual property license can be performed within one year, because, absent express language to the contrary, the licensor’s obligations are fulfilled upon granting the license. The court declined to answer the other two certified questions, as its answer to the first resolved the determinative legal issue. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Collision Commc'ns v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY" on Justia Law

After a traffic collision, the defendant exited his vehicle—leaving his ten-year-old child alone inside, where a loaded but unchambered firearm was holstered in the front seat—and confronted the other driver. The defendant smashed the other driver’s window with a baton, then struck and kicked him multiple times after the driver exited his vehicle and fell to the ground. Several motorists witnessed the altercation and contacted authorities. The defendant departed before police arrived, but later called 911 and was arrested. During the arrest, he disclosed the presence of both his child and the firearm in his vehicle.The Superior Court (Edwards, J.) presided over the ensuing jury trial, in which the defendant was convicted of reckless conduct (for leaving his child unsupervised in a car with a gun), second degree assault (for striking with a baton), two counts of simple assault (for kicking), and criminal mischief. The defendant appealed three of these convictions, contending: that there was insufficient evidence for reckless conduct; that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on self-defense for the second degree assault charge; and that the court wrongly refused a specific unanimity instruction for the simple assault charge.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the reckless conduct conviction, as no rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk to his child. The court held that the self-defense instruction for second degree assault improperly directed the jury regarding the element of deadly force and thus constituted reversible error. Finally, it found that the court's refusal to give a specific unanimity instruction on the simple assault charge was also reversible error. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the convictions for reckless conduct, second degree assault, and simple assault, and remanded the latter two for further proceedings. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff who was injured in an automobile accident caused by the defendant. More than a year after the accident, the plaintiff fell down a set of stairs at a party, fracturing her leg. She alleged that the injuries from the car accident, including a traumatic brain injury, caused ongoing symptoms such as migraines and episodes of syncope (fainting), which she claimed led to her later fall. The defendant disputed both the extent of injuries from the accident and the claim that those injuries caused the subsequent fall, suggesting instead that the plaintiff’s intoxication at the party was a significant factor.After a jury trial in the Rockingham Superior Court, the jury found the defendant liable for the car accident and awarded damages to the plaintiff for those injuries. However, the jury determined that the accident injuries did not cause or substantially contribute to the plaintiff’s later fall down the stairs. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that there were errors in evidentiary rulings and in the conduct of defense counsel, but the trial court denied the motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the trial court’s admission of the defendant’s expert testimony regarding the plaintiff’s blood alcohol content and its role as a contributing factor in the fall. However, the court reversed the trial court’s decision to limit the plaintiff’s cross-examination of the defense’s medical expert and its refusal to strike or provide a curative instruction for defense counsel’s references to missing witnesses during closing arguments. The Supreme Court held that these errors were prejudicial to the plaintiff. The court remanded the case for a new trial on damages for the automobile accident and on both liability and damages related to the subsequent fall. View "Rivas v. Ciecko" on Justia Law

Twenty-three landowners brought suit against Gold Bess Shooting Club, LLC and Caulder Construction, LLC, alleging nuisance due to noise, environmental, and safety concerns from a shooting range established on Caulder’s property in Woodstock, New Hampshire. Gold Bess registered as an LLC and leased land from Caulder, constructing the range and opening it to the public in October 2020. Prior to its opening, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services notified the defendants of alleged violations of state wetlands and terrain alteration statutes. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add noise-related nuisance claims after Woodstock enacted a noise ordinance in April 2021.The Grafton County Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs’ noise-related nuisance claims, finding the shooting range immune under RSA 159-B:1 and RSA 159-B:2, which provide protection from civil liability related to noise for shooting ranges compliant with noise ordinances in effect when the range was established, constructed, or began operations. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and rejected their argument that alleged environmental law violations precluded immunity under RSA chapter 159-B. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants on constitutional equal protection claims, and subsequently allowed the plaintiffs to voluntarily discontinue their remaining claims.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the statutory interpretation of RSA 159-B:1 and RSA 159-B:2 de novo. It held that these statutes require compliance only with noise ordinances, not with other laws such as wetlands or terrain alteration statutes. The court further determined that the shooting range “began operations” prior to the enactment of Woodstock’s noise ordinance, thereby qualifying for immunity from noise-related legal claims under the statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Martell v. Gold Bess Shooting Club, LLC" on Justia Law

Two entities formed a limited liability company in 2012 to operate a high-end hair salon in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. One party contributed financial resources and business expertise, while the other, an established stylist, provided day-to-day management and became the public face of the business. In 2016, they amended their operating agreement to clarify their roles, contributions, and restrictions, including a provision that neither member could transfer their interest in the company without majority approval from disinterested members. The agreement required the stylist to devote all her business time to the company and prohibited competition during membership but was silent on withdrawal by a member.In 2022, after unsuccessful buyout negotiations, the stylist gave notice of her withdrawal from the company. The remaining members sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and sought a declaratory judgment requiring the stylist to continue dedicating her business time to the company. The Superior Court for Rockingham County granted in part and denied in part the stylist’s motion to dismiss, ruling her withdrawal was valid under the operating agreement and the New Hampshire Limited Liability Company Act. As a result, claims relying on her continued membership were dismissed, though the breach of contract claim for pre-withdrawal conduct was initially preserved. The plaintiffs withdrew the remaining contract claim, and the dismissal orders were finalized for appeal.Upon review, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the operating agreement did not prohibit member withdrawal and that withdrawal was not a “transfer” requiring approval under the agreement. The court determined that the stylist retained her economic interest but lost membership rights upon withdrawal, consistent with the statute. The court further found no viable claim for damages or wrongful conduct, as the withdrawal did not breach the agreement or applicable law. View "Peregrine Interests LLC v. Todd" on Justia Law

After the birth of G.W., he resided with his mother at her parents’ home, and the father was frequently present. DCYF investigated an earlier incident involving the child rolling off a couch and closed it as unfounded. When the child was approximately five weeks old, he was seen by his pediatrician after his parents reported bleeding in his mouth, but no cause was identified. Later that day, following an argument, the mother witnessed the father throw the child onto a bed but left him in the father’s care overnight. The next day, the mother noticed the child’s left arm was immobile; she delayed seeking medical care despite advice from a pediatric nurse, only taking the child to the emergency room after further prompting. Medical examination revealed a broken left humerus, healed oral injuries, and a minor eye hemorrhage, with no medical explanation other than trauma.The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed petitions alleging abuse and neglect against both parents. At the 9th Circuit Court-Goffstown Family Division, a hearing was held on these petitions. The mother moved to suppress her statements to child protective service workers, arguing statutory violations during the investigation. The trial court denied the motion and, after hearing testimony from both parents, medical experts, and other witnesses, found by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother had both abused and neglected the child.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence for both findings and whether the statutory violations by DCYF required exclusion of certain evidence. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the mother committed an abusive act under circumstances indicating harm or threatened harm to the child’s life, health, or welfare, and reversed the abuse finding. However, it found sufficient evidence of neglect and determined that any statutory violations by DCYF were harmless error. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire thus affirmed the neglect finding and reversed the abuse finding. View "In re G.W." on Justia Law

A man was stopped by police while walking along a road after a report of a violent incident involving a vehicle and a fleeing suspect. The man matched the description of the person who fled the scene. Without first giving Miranda warnings, an officer handcuffed him and questioned him briefly at the roadside, where he made limited admissions about a fight. Hours later, at the police station, different officers gave him Miranda warnings, obtained a signed waiver, and questioned him further. During this interview, the man made additional incriminating statements. He was later indicted for two forms of second degree murder based on the death of the other individual involved in the incident.The Superior Court partially granted and partially denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements. It suppressed the initial roadside statements, finding a Miranda violation, and also suppressed statements made after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent. However, the court found that the post-Miranda statements made at the police station were voluntary and admissible. At trial, the jury convicted the defendant of reckless second degree murder and acquitted him of knowing second degree murder. The defendant also objected to the admission of certain recorded jail calls, arguing they were irrelevant.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the trial court erred in admitting the post-Miranda interview statements and the jail calls. The court held that the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s post-Miranda statements were voluntary was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, considering the circumstances and the break between interviews. Regarding the jail calls, the court held that even assuming error in admitting certain portions, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Sleeper" on Justia Law