Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, Lincoln police charged defendant Jeffrey Maxfield with criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor offense. The complaint alleged that defendant had recklessly damaged another’s property at a motel in Lincoln. A justice of the peace issued an arrest warrant one week later, but defendant was not arrested until 2013. The State filed the complaint in court three days after the defendant’s arrest. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the delay between the issuance of the arrest warrant and his arrest violated his rights to a speedy trial, due process, and fundamental fairness under both the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions. The trial court denied this motion. Defendant then filed a motion to reconsider, which the court also denied. Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that the charge was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to misdemeanor level offenses. The trial court granted this second motion to dismiss. In denying the State’s motion to reconsider, the trial court stated that it “was unreasonable for there to be a delay of eighteen months between the commencement of prosecution and the commencement of the adversarial proceeding.” This appeal followed. The Supreme Court found in its review of the State's arguments on appeal that under the plain language of the statute, the one-year limitations period for the defendant’s criminal mischief charge began to run on December 15, 2011, the day after all the elements of the alleged offense had occurred. Because the language of RSA 625:8 was plain and unambiguous, and because the Court refused to "add language to a statute that the legislature did not see fit to include," the trial court erred by reading a reasonableness standard into the statute. The Court found that the statute of limitations was not violated in this case, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the State's complaint. View "New Hampshire v. Maxfield" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting that of petitioners, Annemarie. Guare, Cody Blesedell, Garret Healey, Joan Ashwell, and the League of Women Voters, on their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief. When this case was decided by the trial court, petitioners Guare, Blesedell, and Healey were students enrolled at the University of New Hampshire, and petitioner Ashwell was a volunteer with the New Hampshire League of Women Voters. The order on appeal made permanent a preliminary injunction issued in 2012, pursuant to which the State was required to delete from the standard voter registration form the following language: “In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire[ ] driver’s license within 60 days of becoming a resident.” The trial court issued the permanent injunction after concluding that the challenged language violated Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution. On appeal, the State did not challenge the trial court’s issuance of injunctive relief. Rather, the State focused its appellate arguments to the trial court’s determination that the challenged language violated Part I, Article 11. Finding that the challenged language unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to vote, and because, the State failed to advance a "sufficiently weighty interest" to justify the language, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the challenged language violated Part I, Article 11 of the State Constitution. View "Guare v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Scott was convicted by jury on one count of attempted murder, and one count of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon. Defendant confronted his eventual victim over alleged money owed. Defendant raised multiple issues of alleged error from the trial court proceedings. Reviewing each one, but finding none were reversible in defendant's favor, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant Alex Ducharme was convicted of driving under the influence after a bench trial. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in ruling police had probable cause to arrest him for DUI; (2) in concluding that a valid arrest for DUI had occurred and, therefore, that the implied consent statute applied; (3) admitted evidence obtained after he had invoked his Miranda rights and failed to consider the “confusion doctrine”; and (4) found the evidence sufficient to convict him of DUI. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Ducharme" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Francis appealed his conviction of possessing heroin with the intent to dispense. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that: (1) the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a vehicle; and (2) the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon insufficient evidence that he possessed the heroin found in the vehicle. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Francis" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendant Michael Addison was convicted of the 2006 capital murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs and sentenced to death. The New Hampshire Supreme Court subsequently affirmed defendant’s conviction for capital murder, concluding that his sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of aggravating circumstances. As part of its compulsory review, the Supreme Court addressed “[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” The Court concluded that the defendant’s sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate and, accordingly, affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant Makenzy Thelusma was convicted by jury of possession of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Defendant appealed, arguing that: (1) an inculpatory statement he made to the police should have been suppressed; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his heroin and cocaine convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Thelusma" on Justia Law

Defendant Stanley West, II was convicted by jury on three counts of simple assault and one count of resisting arrest or detention. At trial, defendant objected to the trial court's proposed jury instruction on the defense of premises. The trial court overruled the defendant's objection. At the close of the State's case, defendant moved to dismiss the resisting arrest or detention charge, arguing that the State presented no evidence that the police officer attempted to arrest or detain the defendant. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, defendant argued that the trial court erred: (1) by instructing the jury that the defendant must exhaust all non-violent alternatives before using force in defense of premises; and (2) by denying his motion to dismiss the resisting arrest or detention charge for insufficient evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. West" on Justia Law

Defendant Josiah Mayo appealed after a jury convicted him of first degree assault with a deadly weapon, and reckless second degree assault. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by: (1) failing to instruct the jury that his use of force in defense of his cousin was justified if he reasonably believed that his cousin was not the initial aggressor or provoker; (2) denying his motion to dismiss the first degree assault charge on the grounds that his shod foot could not constitute a deadly weapon under RSA 625:11, V (2007); and (3) allowing the admission of evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes. Given that there was some evidence both that the cousin was the initial aggressor or provoker and that defendant was unaware of his cousin’s aggressive and/or provocative actions, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the trial court’s erroneous instructions did not affect the verdict, and therefore were harmless, beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court held that this error required that defendant’s convictions be reversed and that he be granted a new trial. View "New Hampshire v. Mayo" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason McGill appealed his conviction by jury of felony delivery of an unlawful article to a prisoner On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in its instructions to the jury that in order to convict, it had to find that defendant acted "knowingly." Defendant argued the proper mens rea for the crime was "purposely." The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. McGill" on Justia Law