Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jamie Locke appealed her conviction by jury for second degree assault. She argued on appeal that because in her first trial the jury acquitted her of first degree assault, retrying her for second degree assault violated her State and Federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy. Alternatively, she argued that the State should have been required to join in one trial all charges arising from the same criminal episode. The Supreme Court took the opportunity of this case to adopt such a rule of compulsory joinder of criminal charges and reversed. View "New Hampshire v. Locke" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Dupont was convicted by jury of alternative counts of knowing and reckless second-degree murder for the October 2008 stabbing death of his wife. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court erred in failing to specifically describe self-defense as an element of the offense that the State was required to disprove; and (2) the trial court instructed the jury in such a way that the jury could not consider whether he acted in self-defense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dupont " on Justia Law

Respondent, father of Deven O., appealed a circuit court order that terminated his parental rights to Deven on abandonment and failure to support grounds. The circuit court denied a motion for reconsideration where the father asserted he had no legal obligation to support the child because he was neither listed as father on the child's birth certificate nor had been ordered by a court to pay support. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, finding that the father indeed made efforts to communicate with the child, and even filed a parenting petition to request visitation time. With regard to abandonment, the Court found that the circuit court faulted the father for not instituting the parenting petition when the mother made it difficult for him to do so. As such, the Court concluded the mother failed to prove statutory grounds for termination of the father's parental rights, and reversed the circuit court's termination order. View "In re Deven O." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Cheney was convicted by jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping, theft by unauthorized taking, aggravating driving while intoxicated, disobeying an officer and reckless conduct. On appeal, he argued the trial court erroneously denied his motions to dismiss the aggravated felonious sexual assault and reckless conduct indictments. Finding the evidence presented a trial sufficient to support those convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Cheney" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Addison was convicted for the capital murder of a Manchester police officer for which he received the death sentence. Defendant contended on appeal that numerous errors at trial undermined his conviction and sentence. After careful review of each of defendant's twenty-two contentions of error, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.View "New Hampshire v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant Karen Gagne appealed her convictions for theft. She argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was insufficient on two of nine counts. Accordingly, the Court affirmed defendant's conviction on seven, reversed on two and remanded for further proceedings.View " New Hampshire v. Gagne" on Justia Law

Defendant Guilbert Germain appealed his conviction for criminal threatening with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the gun he displayed in the apartment was a firearm, rather than a pellet gun. He contended there was no direct evidence that the gun was a firearm, and that to be sufficient, circumstantial evidence must foreclose all other rational conclusions. Therefore, he asserted that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude a rational conclusion that he brandished a pellet gun rather than a firearm. Finding the evidence was indeed sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Germain" on Justia Law

Petitioner New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL) appealed the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy’s decision that NHRTL did not have standing to participate in administrative actions involving the renewal of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s (PPNNE) limited retail drug distributor license. NHRTL sent a written complaint to the Board, alleging that PPNNE did not have a state contract in place with DHHS and was therefore illegally dispensing prescription drugs at its clinics. In its letter, NHRTL claimed that PPNNE’s contract with DHHS had expired on June 30, 2011, and had not been renewed. On June 18, 2012, PPNNE sent renewal applications for its six clinics to the Board, and on July 2, 2012, the Board sent letters to each clinic acknowledging receipt of the application. Each letter stated that the Board would not review the renewal application until August 15, 2012, but notified the clinics that it had “ministerially” renewed its licenses through September 1, 2012. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board, finding that none of NHRTL's generalized claims alleged NHRTL suffered an injury in fact, or that its own rights have been, or would have been specifically or directly affected. "NHRTL does not claim that any of its individual members has suffered, or will suffer, harm - it refers to deaths caused by the alleged failure to regulate that did not affect NHRTL’s membership. Instead, these concerns merely represent NHRTL’s interest in what it believes to be a public problem. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that NHRTL lacked standing." View "Appeal of New Hampshire Right to Life" on Justia Law

Defendant Barion Perry appealed after a jury convicted him of theft and burglary. He argued that the superior court erred in denying the indictments against him on double jeopardy grounds. Detectives interviewed defendant following his arrest. The interview was recorded. Prior to defendant’s first trial, counsel for defendant and the State agreed that certain statements made by defendant during the interview should be redacted before the recording was played for the jury. Shortly after the State played a redacted version of the recording, defense counsel advised the trial court that three of the statements that should have been redacted were not, in fact, redacted. Defense counsel requested neither a mistrial nor a curative instruction. Because the court was concerned that defense counsel could not effectively advise the defendant about a mistrial as counsel had failed to “mark” two of the statements for redaction prior to trial, it considered assigning independent counsel to speak with the defendant about the mistrial request. The court ultimately concluded, however, that manifest necessity required a mistrial because the jury heard "damaging," "inflammatory" information that a curative instruction would not have been able to address adequately. The court did not assign independent counsel because it concluded that, given the prejudicial nature of the unredacted statements, it "could be ineffective assistance of counsel" for another lawyer to advise the defendant not to seek a mistrial. The trial court declared a mistrial over the defendant’s objection and scheduled a new trial. Prior to the second trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments with prejudice. He argued that the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity, and, therefore, that the double jeopardy provisions of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions barred retrial. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in finding that manifest necessity required a mistrial. Consequently, the mistrial declaration did not bar the defendant’s retrial on double jeopardy grounds. View "New Hampshire v. Perry" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, defendant Theadore Mitchell, was convicted of one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and two class A misdemeanor counts of violation of a protective order. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that he offered to take a polygraph test. Defendant also argued that the trial court plainly erred when it allocated his pretrial confinement credit. The State conceded that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in "New Hampshire v. Edson," defendant's sentence was plainly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing in accordance with "Edson." The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "New Hampshire v. Mitchell " on Justia Law