Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Osahenrumwen Ojo appealed after a jury convicted him of theft by deception in Superior Court. The conviction followed a previous jury trial for a related charge, which ended in a mistrial based upon a hung jury. On appeal, he argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution barred the second trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Ojo" on Justia Law

Defendants Catherine Bailey, Rhylan Bruss, Benjamin DiZoglio, Elizabeth Edwards, Elizabeth Grunewald, Charlene Higgins, William Hopkins, Michael Joseph, Brian Kelly, Matthew Lawrence, Keith Martin, Christian Pannapacker, Tara Powell, Matthew Richards, Katheryn Talbert, and Leah Wolczko, appealed a circuit court ruling that they violated a City of Manchester ordinance establishing a park curfew of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In October 2011, defendants were participating in a movement known nationally as "Occupy Wall Street." One defendant explained that "[o]ccupy is a tactic. Occupy means staying in one place until your grievances are addressed." On October 19, shortly after 11 p.m., the Manchester police told the people present in the park that the police would enforce the park curfew ordinance and asked those present to leave. The defendants declined to do so and received summonses for violating Manchester City Ordinance 96.04. Defendants moved to dismiss the charges against them, arguing, in part, that the "application of the criminal law to their protected rights to free speech" violated the New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions. The court denied defendants' motion after a hearing, and found the defendants guilty. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. View "New Hampshire v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant Adam Wells was indicted on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and one count of felonious sexual assault against his minor daughter. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss one of the indictments alleging aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA). Defendant appealed his convictions on the remaining three AFSA charges and the charge alleging felonious sexual assault (FSA). On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by: (1) failing to grant a mistrial after the child testified to uncharged acts; and (2) admitting testimony regarding out-of-court disclosures made by the child. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Wells" on Justia Law

Following his conviction on four counts of sale of a narcotic drug and the Supreme Court's affirmance of his conviction on appeal, defendant Sean Brown filed a motion for new trial in superior court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He appealed the Superior Court's decision concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his claim and, therefore, denying his motion for new trial. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was one of first impression: the proper forum in which a defendant should raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial, the State contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim and, therefore, should refrain from deciding it. In response, defendant argued that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim should be treated in the same manner as ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, which are routinely resolved in superior court. The trial court agreed with the State, adopting the view of a number of courts that such a claim “must be presented to the appellate court with jurisdiction over the appeal.” On appeal, the State’s position was different: it argued that claims should be brought in the original trial court. Thus, both parties urged the Court to adopt the same procedure. Because the Supreme Court agreed that “appellate courts have an interest in avoiding cases which require the Court to perform the unfamiliar task of fact finding,” the Court concluded that such claims should be heard in the trial court. "Because the trial court is better equipped to resolve the factual disputes that frequently underlie assertions of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we conclude that the proper forum for raising such claims is the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand." View "New Hampshire v. Brown " on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Tsopas faced multiple felony and misdemeanor charges arising out of a single alleged drunk driving incident. The district division set bail initially at $250,000 cash with conditions, but subsequently reduced it to $75,000 cash with conditions. The State asserted, and the defendant did not contest, that this reduction was in response to the defendant's request and over the State’s objection. Defendant thereafter appealed the Superior Court's order denying his third motion to modify bail. He contended on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to conduct a hearing on the motion or issue written findings of fact pursuant to RSA 597:6-e, II; and (2) unsustainably exercising its discretion by setting an "unreasonably high cash only bail." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Tsopas " on Justia Law

Defendant Chad Belleville appealed his conviction for second degree assault. He argued that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "New Hampshire v. Belleville " on Justia Law

Defendant Adam Mueller was convicted by jury on three counts of felony wiretapping. On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of the felony wiretapping statute required a "purposely" mental state when the statute called for a "willful" standard. The State agreed that the trial court’s instruction as to the requisite mens rea was erroneous, but asserted that reversal of the defendant’s convictions was not warranted because the prerequisites for application of the plain error doctrine have not been met. The Supreme Court agreed with defendant's argument on this issue, reversed the trial court, and remanded the case for a new trial.View "New Hampshire v. Mueller" on Justia Law

Juvenile Trevor G. was arraigned on a delinquency petition alleging he had endangered the welfare of a minor. He moved to dismiss the petition because none of the State's witnesses against him were present, and therefore the State could not proceed with its case. The State acknowledged none of its witnesses were present and did not object to the motion, but requested leave to file for reconsideration if it learned there was a good reason why its witnesses did not show. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and the State did not move for reconsideration. A few months later, the State refiled its petition. Trevor moved to dismiss, arguing that the adjudicatory hearing was outside the statutory time limit. The court again held a hearing, and again the witnesses did not show. The Court denied Trevor's motion, finding that because Trevor initiated the dismissal, the State was not barred from re-filing. The Supreme Court granted the trial court's request for interlocutory appeal. The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred in its conclusion that the statutory time limits for the State to re-file its delinquency petition for lack of prosecution was not violated because the dismissal was initiated by the juvenile. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation, and reversed the order denying Trevor's motion to dismiss. View "In re Trevor G." on Justia Law

Defendant John Smith, appealed the sentence he received after being convicted by jury of receipt of stolen property. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court committed plain error by imposing a felony-level sentence instead of a misdemeanor-level sentence when the jury was not instructed that it had to find that the stolen property consisted of firearms. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Smith " on Justia Law

Defendant William Ramsey appealed his convictions on second degree assault, reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and criminal threatening. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court erred by : (1) denying his request to cross-examine the victim about an allegedly false statement she made on her 2010 application to renew her driver’s license; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence that he treated the victim’s dog well; and (3) imposing consecutive sentences for second degree assault and reckless conduct with a deadly weapon. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions.View "New Hampshire v. Ramsey" on Justia Law