Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant Barion Perry appealed a superior court order that imposed a suspended sentence. He pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property and one count of stalking. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred in imposing the sentence based on conduct that occurred before he was released from custody; and (2) imposition of the sentence violated due process. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Perry" on Justia Law

Defendant Kurt Carpentino appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to amend one of his sentences based on an amendment to the statute under which his sentence was based. The statute in question took effect after the offense, but before defendant's conviction became final. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Carpentino" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Gness appealed his convictions for possession of psilocin with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana. On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a warrantless search of a desk drawer located in the office of his convenience store. Defendant argued that because the search did not meet the requirements of the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement, it violated his constitutional rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Gness" on Justia Law

Defendant Heidi Brouillette was charged with one count each of: burglary, second degree assault, and criminal mischief. At the time of her arraignment, defendant applied for appointed counsel. Based upon her financial affidavit, the trial court determined that she was indigent and qualified for appointed counsel. However, prior to February 2013 defendant retained private counsel and appointed counsel withdrew from the case. In that month, defendant stated her intent to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and filed a motion for services other than counsel requesting funds for an expert psychological evaluation. She attached a financial affidavit to her motion to support her claim of indigence. In denying the defendant's motion, the trial court noted that defendant retained private counsel: "the appearance of current counsel, an ability to pay is presumed." The record did not show that the trial court reviewed the defendant's attached financial affidavit in reaching its conclusion. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. With the trial court’s approval, defendant then sought interlocutory review of the court's ruling, and the Supreme Court granted her request to answer the question of whether RSA 604-A:6 (Supp. 2013) violated the State and Federal Constitutions' right to assistance of counsel, due process of law and equal protection if an indigent defendant not represented by appointed counsel was not provided with funding for necessary services other than counsel. The Supreme Court concluded that RSA 604-A:6 could not be read as prohibiting a court from authorizing necessary services to indigent criminal defendants who are self-represented, or who have pro bono, reduced fee, or retained counsel. With this conclusion, the Court did not reach whether the statute violated defendant's rights under the State or Federal Constitutions. View "New Hampshire v. Brouillette" on Justia Law

Defendant Stephen Socci appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to suppress evidence that lead to his convictions for manufacturing a controlled drug (marijuana) and possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell. He argued that the trial court erred because the evidence resulted from: (1) an unlawful search of his property; and (2) a subsequent search involuntarily given or tainted by the prior unlawful search. Contrary to the State’s assertions, however, the trial court made no finding that the officers confronted the defendant solely with the odor of marijuana detected in this manner. Although the trial court found that one of the arresting officers "told the defendant that one of the officers could smell marijuana and asked [him] for consent," this statement did not indicate that defendant was also not confronted with other evidence. Because its findings were unclear, the Supreme Court remanded this case for the trial court to determine whether, prior to his consent, defendant was confronted with evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search of the area surrounding his garage, and whether the evidence obtained following defendant’s consent "has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint." Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court failed to make particularized factual findings with regard to several critical allegations underlying defendant’s voluntariness argument. The trial court's order was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Socci" on Justia Law

Defendant Jessica Botelho appealed her convictions of manslaughter, negligent homicide, and reckless conduct. She argued on appeal that the trial court erred: (1) by admitting into evidence the name and description of a particular website that she visited while leaving her children unattended in her bathtub; and (2) by excluding certain portions of a recorded police interview. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "New Hampshire v. Botelho" on Justia Law