Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Thomas Reid appealed a superior court decision that denied his petition under the Right-to-Know Law, to compel defendant, New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster, to produce unredacted records of the Attorney General’s investigation into alleged wrongdoing by former Rockingham County Attorney James Reams. On appeal, plaintiff argued: (1) the trial court’s ruling violated Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution; (2) that the trial court erred in determining that the investigative records at issue were “[r]ecords pertaining to internal personnel practices,” because the attorney general’s investigation cannot be considered “internal”; and (3) the trial court erred in finding that the attorney general’s investigation of Reams was “conducted jointly with Rockingham County.” “Because we decide cases on constitutional grounds only when necessary,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed plaintiff’s second argument, which raised an issue of statutory interpretation. In it, plaintiff argued that the trial court erroneously “applied a subject matter exemption contrary to the plain language of RSA 91-A:5[,] IV.” Fundamentally, plaintiff’s argument was that records of the defendant’s investigation of Reams did not “pertain[] to internal personnel practices,” because “[t]he Attorney General is simply not the County Attorney’s employer.” The Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff’s statutory interpretation and, therefore, vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reid v. New Hampshire Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant Seth Mazzaglia appealed after he was convicted by jury of first degree murder. The central disputed issue at trial concerned the circumstances of the victim’s death. The State contended that defendant, enraged by the victim’s refusal to participate in a sexual encounter with him and his girlfriend, attacked the victim from behind while she was watching a movie, strangling her with a rope. The State further asserted that, after the victim had died, defendant sexually assaulted her. By contrast, the defense theory contended the victim died during a consensual sexual encounter with defendant and his girlfriend. According to that theory, the victim allowed defendant and his girlfriend to put a “harness” around her and then had consensual sexual intercourse with defendant, while his girlfriend accidentally smothered her. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it excluded evidence alleging that the victim had expressed to her prior partners an interest in bondage-related sexual activities. Finding no reversible error from the trial court’s exclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Mazzaglia" on Justia Law

Defendant Jamie Letarte appealed after he was convicted by jury on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one count of felony indecent exposure. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred when it precluded him from introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach the victim’s testimony on a collateral matter during her cross-examination by defense counsel, and when it denied his motion to vacate the verdict and schedule a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Letarte" on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Milton was convicted by jury on one count of second degree murder, one count of assault by a prisoner, and one count of falsifying physical evidence. The charges against defendant stemmed from a 2010 incident at the State Prison in which both defendant and the victim were incarcerated. Defendant was a member of a prison gang, the leader of which instructed defendant to assault the victim. The victim died from multiple blows to the head. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to properly limit the introduction of evidence relating to his alleged membership in the prison gang. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Milton" on Justia Law

In 2011, the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security (department) determined that, while receiving unemployment benefits in 2010, petitioner Annelie Mullen had “knowingly failed to report [her] work and earnings” and, thus, the department had overpaid her benefits. As a result, the department informed petitioner that she was required to repay the overpaid benefits. petitioner appealed the department’s determination to the tribunal, which upheld the determination. Petitioner then requested that the commissioner reopen the record before the tribunal. The commissioner granted her request and ordered the tribunal to conduct a de novo hearing. In January 2012, the tribunal found that the petitioner was overpaid benefits in 2010, but that she was “without fault in creating the overpayment.” As a result, the tribunal determined that petitioner was not required to repay the state unemployment benefits. In March, the commissioner, on her own initiative, informed the parties that she was again reopening the record before the tribunal because she believed that the tribunal had mistakenly excluded the testimony of a particular witness. Petitioner appealed this second re-opening, arguing it deprived her of due process. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. Subsequently, the tribunal held a third de novo hearing. In April 2014, the tribunal issued a decision upholding the initial determination that petitioner was overpaid benefits and requiring the petitioner to repay them. Petitioner appealed to the board, but the board declined to accept jurisdiction because the petitioner had not first requested that the commissioner reopen the tribunal decision. petitioner then requested that the commissioner reopen the case, reverse the tribunal’s April 2014 decision, and reinstate the January 2012 decision in her favor. Pending a decision on her request, the petitioner also appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no error in the tribunal's 2014 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Annelie Mullen" on Justia Law

Defendant Amadou Diallo appealed the extended term of imprisonment imposed by the Superior Court after his conviction for felonious sexual assault. He argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the State provided sufficient notice of its intent to seek an extended sentence, and because of that lack of notice, he asked the Supreme Court to vacate his sentence and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. Finding no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Supreme Court denied his request and affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Diallo" on Justia Law

Defendant David Aldrich appealed after a jury convicted him on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. Defendant argued the trial court erred by preventing him from cross-examining the victim about three of four allegedly false allegations of sexual assault that she had made against other men. He also challenged the court’s failure to disclose material following an in camera review. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Aldrich" on Justia Law

Defendant Terry Adams, Jr. appealed his convictions of reckless conduct, and simple assault. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by: (1) recalling the jury to correct an error in the verdict on the reckless conduct charge; (2) denying his motion to introduce exculpatory evidence at trial; and (3) prohibiting him from introducing evidence of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Adams" on Justia Law

John Doe appealed a superior court ruling in favor of Elizabeth Canner. Canner requested access to records relating to Doe’s arrest and prosecution under the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law. Prior to the filing of Canner’s Right-to-Know requests, Doe had filed a petition for annulment under RSA 651:5 (2016). While Canner’s request was pending, Doe’s annulment petition was granted. The trial court concluded that, notwithstanding the fact that Doe’s petition for annulment had been granted, records relating to Doe’s arrest and prosecution were not categorically exempt from public inspection under the Right-to-Know Law. This case presented an issue of first impression in New Hampshire for the New Hampshire Supreme Court: whether records maintained by arresting and prosecuting agencies pertaining to an annulled arrest and the related prosecution are categorically exempt from public inspection under the Right-to-Know Law. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the superior court's decision and affirmed. View "Grafton County Attorney's Office v. Canner" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault. Before trial, he filed a motion asking the trial court to order, among other things, “the State to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve all cell phone activity of [complainant] including voice mails, text messaging, e-mails, social media postings and photographs by making a mirror image of all cell phones utilized by [complainant].” Defendant also requested that the court order the State to “mak[e] immediate preservation and production requests of all service providers including, but not limited to cell phone[] carriers, Facebook and any other social media or communication provider with which [the complainant] had an account.” The State objected, arguing, among other things, that “[d]efendants generally do not have the legal authority to direct an investigation or demand that the State investigate, obtain, and preserve specific evidence.” Defendant responded in his motion that he was “not seeking discovery . . . but rather the preservation of” the records and communications. At the time the defendant filed his motion, the State did not possess any of the records or communications that defendant was seeking. The trial court granted defendant's proposed order, which compelled the State to obtain and produce the records for in camera inspection. The State appealed when its motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there were other procedural means through which defendant could obtain the records, and that the trial court did not have authority to grant the motion to compel them as it did. View "Petition of State of New Hampshire" on Justia Law