Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant James Mello appealed his conviction on four counts of delivering child pornography. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a search warrant issued by the district court which authorized a search for information held by his Internet service provider. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the district court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction by issuing the warrant. Furthermore, he argued that the warrant violated his state and federal constitutional rights. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction, and that Defendant had no expectation of privacy in the Internet information. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision.

In July 2009, a grand jury indicted Defendant Richard MacDonald on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault for having sex with a person whom he knew to be âmentally defective.â At trial, Defendant filed a motion seeking in camera review of the victimâs medical and mental health records. The State did not object. The court received over two thousand pages of the victimâs medical records. The court assumed without review, that the records were probably relevant, and allowed the documents to be produced âfor Counselâs eyes only.â The State objected to the courtâs lack-of-review, arguing that the point of in camera review was for the court to decide which documents were appropriate. Defendant objected, and the State applied for a writ of certiorari to compel the trial court to determine the disclosure of the appropriate records. The Supreme Court granted the writ, and held that the lower courtâs failure to review the records was an error. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for an in camera review of the medical records.

Defendant Marilyn Demond-Surace appealed her conviction on two counts of vehicular assault. Defendantâs convictions stem from a 2005 motor vehicle accident that killed two people. The trial court granted Defendantâs motion to exclude all evidence related to blood alcohol tests because those tests were taken without Defendantâs consent, but denied Defendantâs motion to preclude the State from introducing evidence regarding her alcohol consumption. During the motion hearing the State said it did not have any witnesses that would testify to Defendantâs impairment. In ruling on the motions, the court said, âas far as the jury is going to know, [Defendant] was sober.â On appeal, Defendantâs arguments largely focused on the courtâs order to the State to âstay away from impairment.â Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial for statements made by the State in its closing argument on the impairment issue. The Supreme Court found that â[i]n allowing evidence that the Defendant consumed alcohol despite having excluded all evidence that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol, the court made a distinction unsupported by our case law.â The Court reversed the lower court and remanded Defendantâs case for a new trial.

Defendant Todd Peters appealed his convictions on first-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motions in limine to introduce evidence of alternative perpetrators, and to exclude phone record evidence at trial. On review of the lower courtâs record, the Supreme Court concluded that even if the trial court erred in these respects, the State met its burden of proving that these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision, and upheld Defendantâs convictions.

Defendant Michael Moncada appealed his conviction on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, ten counts of felonious sexual assault and one count of bail jumping stemming from inappropriate contact he had with his girlfriendâs thirteen year-old daughter. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by finding him competent to stand trial, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. The trial court heard testimony from two experts who both agreed that Defendant had âcertain cognitive defects.â But both did not agree whether Defendant was competent to stand trial. The State offered testimony of an ex-girlfriend of Defendant, who testified that she had seen Defendant reading the newspaper, and that he wrote her numerous letters when he served time in prison. Given all the evidence on the competency issue, the Supreme court found it âcannot conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could have found as the trial court did.â The Court affirmed the trial courtâs ruling on the competency issue, and also found that evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction.

Following a jury trial, Defendant Walter Hutchinson, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of his former girlfriend Kimberly Ernest. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence on âcausationâ of Ernestâs death. On October 8, 1991, a jury found Defendant guilty of attempted murder for beating and strangling Ernest. In the attack, she sustained severe brain damage. Ernestâs family chose to treat her only with comfort measures. She died from her injuries. The State brought murder charges against the defendant. Defendant sought to have the charges against him thrown out, and appealed the trial courtâs denial of his motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove he caused Ernestâs death. He did not contest that his actions caused her permanent brain injury; rather, Defendant argues that the risks to Ernestâs health as a result of his actions did not establish the necessary element of legal causation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the juryâs finding that Defendantâs conduct caused Ernestâs death beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to deny Defendant his motion to dismiss.