Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Nicholas H. Brooks, was convicted of two counts of simple assault following a jury trial. The incident occurred on February 17, 2022, when Brooks, working as a substitute educator, attempted to take a toy from a student who was causing a disturbance in the classroom. The student refused to comply, swore at Brooks, and allegedly lunged at him. Brooks then grabbed the student's sweatshirt and pushed him against a wall. The jury saw video evidence of the incident and heard testimony from multiple witnesses.The Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) denied Brooks' request to instruct the jury on the "special responsibilities" defense for the charges on which he was convicted. The court allowed the instruction only for the charge related to grabbing the student's hand. Brooks was acquitted of the second-degree assault charge and the first simple assault charge but was convicted of the second and third simple assault charges. Brooks appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, admission and exclusion of certain testimonies, and handling of the complainant's school records.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in not providing the special responsibilities defense instruction for all charges. The court clarified that the correct standard of review for such a denial is de novo, not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. The court determined that there was "some evidence" to support a rational finding that Brooks was acting as a person with special responsibilities throughout the incident. Consequently, the court reversed Brooks' simple assault convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also addressed other evidentiary issues, finding errors in the trial court's admission of certain testimonies and exclusion of a student's statement. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The defendant, Michael R. Smith, was convicted by a jury in Superior Court on two counts of theft by unauthorized taking and three counts of attempted theft by unauthorized taking, all under circumstances warranting an extended term of imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the trial court’s determinations regarding his competency and the order of restitution.Initially, the defendant was indicted in June 2018. His counsel filed a motion to determine his competency, which was granted, and a competency evaluation was ordered. The forensic examiner concluded that the defendant was malingering and competent to stand trial. A second evaluation, requested by the defense, also found him competent. The trial court then found the defendant competent based on these evaluations. Later, the defendant chose to represent himself, and the court ordered another evaluation to determine his competency to proceed without counsel. The evaluator found him competent to decide whether to represent himself and to stand trial.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in its competency determinations, as the defendant had been found competent by multiple evaluations, and the defense had effectively stipulated to his competency. The court also found no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the defendant to represent himself, as there was no bona fide doubt about his competency to stand trial. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing based on the defendant’s behavior at trial.Regarding the restitution order, the court found that the amount ordered was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not improperly delegate the calculation of restitution to the Department of Corrections. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

M.T., a 16-year-old juvenile, was charged with simple assault and willful concealment. His parents expressed that they did not feel safe with him at home and requested residential treatment. M.T. was placed in shelter care but was removed due to dangerous behavior, including physical altercations and property damage. The shelter exercised its right to terminate treatment, leading to M.T.'s placement at the Sununu Youth Services Center (SYSC).The Circuit Court held an adjudicatory hearing where M.T. pled true to the charges. The court scheduled a dispositional hearing and, in the interim, heard arguments regarding M.T.'s placement. The juvenile probation and parole officer (JPPO) testified that no alternative placements were available. The court ordered M.T. to be detained at SYSC, citing the lack of less restrictive options and the need for M.T.'s safety and supervision.At the dispositional hearing, the State recommended that M.T. remain at SYSC due to his behavior and the lack of alternative placements. M.T. requested to return to his parents, but the court found this unsuitable. The court committed M.T. to SYSC for the remainder of his minority, emphasizing the need for intensive care and supervision and the unavailability of other options. The court also ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to continue searching for less restrictive placements, including out-of-state options.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in considering the lack of available placements and committing M.T. to SYSC. The court also found that M.T. waived his argument regarding the right to counsel during the Comprehensive Assessment for Treatment (CAT) interview. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

The defendant, Erin Warren, was charged with first-degree assault for failing to seek medical attention for her daughter A.D.'s head wound, and second-degree assault for binding A.D.'s arms. A.D. was admitted to the hospital with a severe, infected head wound and other injuries. The hospital staff reported the case to the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and the Rochester Police Department. A.D. was placed in foster care, where she disclosed further abuse by the defendant.The Superior Court allowed A.D. to testify via one-way video feed outside the defendant's presence, citing potential trauma to A.D. The jury convicted the defendant on both charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that her confrontation rights were violated, among other issues.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that allowing A.D. to testify outside the defendant's presence violated the defendant's right to meet witnesses "face to face" under the New Hampshire Constitution. The court reversed the second-degree assault conviction, finding that A.D.'s testimony was crucial to that charge and its exclusion was not harmless. However, it affirmed the first-degree assault conviction, concluding that other overwhelming evidence supported the verdict.The court also addressed the admissibility of uncharged conduct evidence, finding no error in the trial court's decision to admit it to rebut the defense's suggestibility argument and explain A.D.'s delayed disclosure. The court upheld the trial court's determination of A.D.'s competency to testify and found no error in the in camera review of DCYF and Community Partners records. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault with a firearm following a jury trial. The incident occurred when the defendant returned to his apartment building and was confronted by R.S. about an unpaid debt. An altercation ensued, during which R.S. pushed the defendant, who then stumbled down the stairs and subsequently shot R.S. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, which argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The jury found the defendant guilty, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The court noted that the jury could have found that the push by R.S. was not sufficient to create a reasonable belief that R.S. would cause serious bodily injury. Additionally, the court highlighted that the defendant and R.S. were 30 feet apart at the time of the shooting, and R.S. was unarmed. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the State had disproved the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Perez" on Justia Law

The defendant, Roger Roy, was charged with offenses against an intimate partner between July 14 and July 16, 2019. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of one count of felony domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence - simple assault. The defendant appealed, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 2021. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdicts, arguing that the State knowingly used false evidence, specifically the victim's testimony about the year of text messages exchanged between them.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that although the victim's testimony was false, the defendant did not establish that the State knowingly used perjured testimony. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the State's failure to correct the false testimony affected the jury's judgment.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the victim's false testimony was material to the defendant's convictions. The court determined that the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment, as it undermined the victim's credibility. The court also concluded that the State should have known the testimony was false, given its awareness of the defendant's pretrial detention in 2018.The court held that the State's failure to correct the false testimony was not harmless error and reversed the denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdicts. The case was remanded for a new trial on the count of domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and the four counts of domestic violence - simple assault. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jalen Miller, was convicted by a jury in Superior Court on multiple charges, including second-degree assault-domestic violence, simple assault-domestic violence, criminal mischief, obstructing the report of a crime or injury, and false imprisonment. The charges stemmed from an incident where Miller and the victim, his wife, had an altercation that escalated into physical violence. Miller was accused of throwing the victim down stairs, choking her, hitting her, and damaging her cell phone to prevent her from calling the police.The trial court denied Miller's requests for a jury instruction on mutual consent for one of the simple assault charges and for dismissal of the false imprisonment charge. The court also denied his motion to dismiss the simple assault charge related to pinning the victim on the bed. Miller was sentenced to three to six years for second-degree assault-domestic violence and received suspended sentences for the other charges.On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed several issues. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on mutual consent, as the evidence did not support such a defense. The court also upheld the jury instruction on obstructing the report of a crime, finding it adequately covered the necessary elements. Additionally, the court determined that the common law merger doctrine did not apply to the criminal mischief and obstructing the report of a crime convictions, as they required different evidence.However, the court concluded that the false imprisonment conviction should have merged with the simple assault-domestic violence conviction, as the confinement was incidental to the assault. Consequently, the court reversed the false imprisonment conviction but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The defendant, Matthew Clark, is charged with a felony count of criminal threatening with a deadly weapon. The complainant recorded a conversation with the defendant without his consent, in which he made potentially incriminating statements. The complainant later reported the incident to law enforcement and provided them with the recording.The defendant moved to suppress the recording, arguing it was made without his consent in violation of RSA chapter 570-A, which he claimed required suppression of any such recording. The State objected. The Superior Court denied the motion, concluding that suppression under RSA 570-A:6 is required only for felony violations of the Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Law. The court determined that the complainant's recording constituted a misdemeanor violation since she was a party to the communication, and thus, suppression was not warranted.The defendant moved for reconsideration, reasserting his argument that any violation of RSA chapter 570-A requires suppression. The trial court denied the motion and certified three interlocutory questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court held that suppression under RSA 570-A:6 is required only when the information is part of or derived from a communication intercepted in violation of the felony provision of the Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Law. The court clarified that a one-party recording can be either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the mental state of the person making the recording. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether the complainant's recording constituted a felony violation due to her subsequent disclosure to law enforcement. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

In the early morning of September 12, 2020, Brookline Police Officer Torrisi encountered a vehicle stopped in the roadway. Upon approaching, he noticed signs of intoxication in the driver, Roy Rogers, whose license was suspended. After administering field sobriety tests, Torrisi determined Rogers was impaired and attempted to arrest him. Rogers resisted, leading to a prolonged encounter involving another officer and a friend of Rogers who arrived at the scene. Despite resistance, Rogers was eventually handcuffed and taken to the police station, where he agreed to a breathalyzer test, which showed a result of .07. Rogers was initially given a hand summons for operating after suspension and allowed to leave.The Circuit Court (Derby, J.) found Rogers guilty of driving under the influence and five counts of resisting arrest but not guilty of negligent driving. Rogers moved to dismiss all charges, arguing that the officers had promised not to prosecute if his breathalyzer result was under .08. The court denied the motion, stating there was no enforceable agreement and that enforcing such an agreement would be against public policy. Rogers was convicted on the remaining charges, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court held that there was no enforceable agreement not to prosecute, as there was no meeting of the minds between Rogers and the officers. Additionally, the court addressed Rogers' double jeopardy claim, concluding that the unit of prosecution for resisting arrest is each discrete volitional act of resistance. The court affirmed Rogers' conviction for driving under the influence and two counts of resisting arrest but vacated three of the resisting arrest convictions, determining they constituted a single continuous course of conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Three retired New Hampshire State Police troopers challenged their inclusion on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES), claiming their placement was based on outdated and misinterpreted conduct. Approximately twenty years ago, the troopers inflated traffic stop records in their activity logs to meet mandated quotas. An internal investigation led to their discipline but not termination. Initially placed on the "Laurie List," their names were later removed, only to be reinstated on the EES over a decade later.The Superior Court dismissed the troopers' complaint, finding their conduct potentially exculpatory and their placement on the EES appropriate. The court also ruled that the troopers had received adequate due process. The troopers appealed, arguing that their conduct was not fraudulent and that the age of the conduct diminished its relevance.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case, focusing on whether the troopers' conduct was "potentially exculpatory" under RSA 105:13-d. The court noted that "potentially exculpatory evidence" includes evidence that could be material to guilt or punishment, including impeachment evidence. The court emphasized that factors such as the age and nature of the conduct should be considered in determining its relevance.The court concluded that the limited record did not establish whether the troopers' conduct was potentially exculpatory, as it could have been a result of a mistaken interpretation of reporting requirements rather than dishonesty. Therefore, the court reversed the Superior Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the potential exculpatory nature of the conduct, considering its admissibility and relevance in future criminal cases. View "Doe v. N.H. Attorney Gen." on Justia Law