Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant david Pyles was convicted by jury on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Pyles" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Sulloway appealed his conviction by jury of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the thirteen-year-old victim's examining doctor and the victim's stepfather. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Sulloway " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kenneth Lahm appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendants, Detective Michael Farrington and the Town of Tilton. Plaintiff sued defendants for negligence. Farrington interviewed an alleged victim who was recovering from severe burns and bruises at Concord Hospital, and who stated that she believed she had been sexually assaulted. The alleged victim claimed that, three days earlier, she had gone home with plaintiff after drinking approximately four beers at a bar. She claimed that, upon arriving at plaintiff's house, plaintiff gave her two drinks containing Red Bull, after which she "passed out" and did not remember anything until waking three days later in plaintiff's bed, without any clothes, and discovering severe burns and bruises on her body. Following plaintiff's arrest and the search of his house, an evidentiary probable cause hearing was held, at which a judge found probable cause that plaintiff had committed second-degree assault. Plaintiff hired private investigators, who interviewed, among other people, neighbors who recalled seeing the alleged victim outside plaintiff's house during the time she claimed to have been passed out. The investigators also interviewed a friend of plaintiff, a medical doctor who said that he spoke to the alleged victim by phone about her injuries, and that she told him they had been caused by her having accidentally fallen onto a wood stove. Plaintiff claimed that, once the prosecution received this and other "exculpatory information," which he provided to the court, it dropped the pending charge against him. Plaintiff sued Farrington and the Town, alleging that Farrington had conducted a negligent investigation prior to his arrest, and that the Town was vicariously liable. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis, among other grounds, that Farrington "did not have a legal duty to investigate beyond establishing probable cause before arresting and bringing a criminal charge against [Lahm]." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that immunizing police officers from "extended liability" was an interest that outweighs plaintiff's claimed interest in requiring a "reasonable investigation beyond just finding probable cause" prior to arrest. Because Farrington owed no duty to plaintiff, he could not be found liable for negligence on these facts. Absent tortious conduct by Farrington, the Town could not be vicariously liable for his conduct. View "Lahm v. Farrington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William O'Brien appealed a Superior Court order that granted summary judgment in favor of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Raymond Buckley, Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, and denied plaintiff’s motion. The trial court ruled that plaintiff, who was a Republican candidate for re-election to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, did not have standing to file an action for damages under RSA 664:14-a (2008), the "Robocall Statute." In light of the fact that the Democratic party had fewer candidates than it had spaces on the November ballot, plaintiff sought "Democratic write-in votes in the September 14, 2010, primary so that he could appear on the ballot in the November cycle for elections as both (R)epublican and (D)emocrat." The day before the primary, defendants called 394 households with a prerecorded political message. Plaintiff received the highest number of votes in the Republican primary, winning a place on the general election ballot as a Republican. He did not secure enough votes in the Democratic Primary to also appear on the November ballot as a Democrat. In the general election, plaintiff won a seat in the House of Representatives. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the office of the Attorney General, alleging that defendants violated the Robocall Statute, because they were "responsible for calls containing a prerecorded political message that lacked the statutorily required disclosures." In August 2011, the Democratic Party entered into a consent agreement with the attorney general to resolve claims for the alleged violation of the statute; the agreement was not an admission that defendants violated the statute. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit and denying his motion for summary judgment. He contended that the plain language of the statute was broad and intended to include candidates who are the subject of a prerecorded political message. Alternatively, he claimed that, even if the statute was deemed to be ambiguous, the legislative history did not support the trial court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that plaintiff did not allege an injury flowing from the alleged statutory violation. Therefore, he did not have standing. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "O'Brien v. New Hampshire Democratic Party " on Justia Law

Defendant City of Portsmouth (City), appeals a jury verdict awarding $128,111 as just compensation for the defendant’s taking by eminent domain of easement rights in property of plaintiff Houston Holdings, LLC. Defendant challenged the Superior Court’s ruling on a motion in limine and the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict. Finding no error in the Superior Court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Houston Holdings, LLC v. City of Portsmouth" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Tabaldi appealed his convictions for the sale of narcotics, possession of narcotics, being a felon in possession of an electronic defense weapon, and for receiving stolen property. He argued the superior court erred in denying his motion to strike a prospective juror, and by denying his motions to dismiss the weapon-possession and narcotics-possession charges. Additionally, defendant claimed the court erred in admitting certain evidence over his objection. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Tabaldi" on Justia Law

Defendant William Decato appealed his convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault, attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and falsifying physical evidence, on the ground that he was incompetent to stand trial. Finding that the trial court did not err in finding defendant competent to stand trial, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Decato" on Justia Law

Defendant Ernest Willis appealed his conviction on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA) and one count of felonious sexual assault (FSA). He alleged the Superior Court erred by admitting at trial statements he made to his church pastor, which he asserted violated his religious privilege, and by admitting certain portions of a recording of a police interview of him. Although his notice of appeal referenced his conviction by plea on a second charge of FSA, his brief did not assert any error as to his plea. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed all four convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Willis" on Justia Law

Defendant Bradford Dalton was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI)-third offense, following a bench trial. He appealed his convictions based on his contention the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dalton" on Justia Law

Police searched defendant's vehicle and found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol adjacent to a loaded magazine in the vehicle's glove compartment. The pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber or a magazine in the magazine well. The State charged the defendant with a class A misdemeanor for "knowingly carry[ing] a loaded pistol . . . in a vehicle without a valid license . . . ." Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that "[t]he firearm at issue was not loaded and therefore no license was required and no crime was committed." The trial court found RSA 159:4 "potentially ambiguous" and transferred the question to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the definition of a ‘loaded pistol or revolver' [under RSA 159:4 (2002)] did not encompass a firearm with no cartridge in the firearm, and no magazine in the magazine well, or with a loaded magazine located next to it and easily accessible. View "New Hampshire v. Dor" on Justia Law