Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The petitioner, Maria Cristina Jarero Penichet (mother), appealed orders from the Circuit Court granting the motion of the respondent, Kenneth Corroon (father), to deny registration of a foreign child support order from Mexico under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Circuit Court concluded that the Mexico court did not have personal jurisdiction over the father and denied the mother’s request to reopen the record.The mother and father, who are unmarried, have one minor child born in New York in 2016. They executed a Stipulation of Paternity, Custody, and Access in New York, granting the mother sole custody and the right to relocate with the child, which she did, moving to Mexico in September 2016. The father, who lives in New Hampshire, began providing monthly child support. In 2022, the mother filed a petition in Mexico City for child support, resulting in a temporary support order. She then sought to register this order in New Hampshire, which the father contested, arguing that Mexico lacked personal jurisdiction over him.The Circuit Court found that the father did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Mexico to justify its exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court issued temporary orders to protect the child’s interests and denied the mother’s motion for reconsideration and to reopen the record, concluding that the additional facts presented did not establish jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. The court held that the father did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of Mexico’s laws, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also found no error in the Circuit Court’s refusal to reopen the record, as the mother did not provide reasons why the new information could not have been presented earlier. View "In the Matter of Penichet and Corroon" on Justia Law

The defendant, Roger Roy, was charged with offenses against an intimate partner between July 14 and July 16, 2019. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of one count of felony domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence - simple assault. The defendant appealed, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 2021. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdicts, arguing that the State knowingly used false evidence, specifically the victim's testimony about the year of text messages exchanged between them.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that although the victim's testimony was false, the defendant did not establish that the State knowingly used perjured testimony. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the State's failure to correct the false testimony affected the jury's judgment.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the victim's false testimony was material to the defendant's convictions. The court determined that the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment, as it undermined the victim's credibility. The court also concluded that the State should have known the testimony was false, given its awareness of the defendant's pretrial detention in 2018.The court held that the State's failure to correct the false testimony was not harmless error and reversed the denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdicts. The case was remanded for a new trial on the count of domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and the four counts of domestic violence - simple assault. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

Gilbert Menke died on July 13, 2016, following a work-related injury. He was survived by his common law spouse, Maia Beh, and their daughter. Beh received a letter from the decedent’s employer’s insurer, informing her that she and her daughter might be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Beh provided the necessary documentation and requested benefits for her daughter, which were authorized by the New Hampshire Department of Labor (DOL). In October 2020, Beh requested to be added to the list of dependents for death benefits allocation, which the insurer denied, arguing that her request was outside the statute of limitations.The DOL ruled that Beh’s request was not a new and separate claim and was not barred by the statute of limitations. The insurer appealed to the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB), which held a de novo hearing and concluded that Beh’s request was a separate claim barred by the statute of limitations. Beh’s motion for rehearing was denied, leading to this appeal.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that adding a dependent to an open death benefits claim does not constitute a separate claim. The court held that the New Hampshire Workers’ Compensation Law does not set a time limit for a dependent to request allocation of benefits under an open death benefits claim. The court reversed the CAB’s decision, ruling that as long as a timely claim for death benefits is filed by any dependent, subsequent requests for allocation by other dependents are not barred by the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Appeal of Estate of Menke" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jalen Miller, was convicted by a jury in Superior Court on multiple charges, including second-degree assault-domestic violence, simple assault-domestic violence, criminal mischief, obstructing the report of a crime or injury, and false imprisonment. The charges stemmed from an incident where Miller and the victim, his wife, had an altercation that escalated into physical violence. Miller was accused of throwing the victim down stairs, choking her, hitting her, and damaging her cell phone to prevent her from calling the police.The trial court denied Miller's requests for a jury instruction on mutual consent for one of the simple assault charges and for dismissal of the false imprisonment charge. The court also denied his motion to dismiss the simple assault charge related to pinning the victim on the bed. Miller was sentenced to three to six years for second-degree assault-domestic violence and received suspended sentences for the other charges.On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed several issues. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on mutual consent, as the evidence did not support such a defense. The court also upheld the jury instruction on obstructing the report of a crime, finding it adequately covered the necessary elements. Additionally, the court determined that the common law merger doctrine did not apply to the criminal mischief and obstructing the report of a crime convictions, as they required different evidence.However, the court concluded that the false imprisonment conviction should have merged with the simple assault-domestic violence conviction, as the confinement was incidental to the assault. Consequently, the court reversed the false imprisonment conviction but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law