Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Police responded to a hotel after receiving a report about a missing juvenile. Upon arrival, they found a juvenile matching the description, apparently unclothed under the covers, with visible red marks and empty alcohol containers in the room. The defendant, a 24-year-old man, was present and admitted to meeting the juvenile at a bus stop and consuming alcohol with her, believing she was over eighteen. The officers arrested the defendant for allegedly providing alcohol to a minor and seized his cell phone during a search incident to arrest. Subsequent investigation revealed that the juvenile, who was fourteen or fifteen, had met the defendant online, disclosed her age, and described sexual activity with him. Police obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s cell phone, which led to the discovery of explicit messages and images, resulting in multiple charges.The Rockingham County Superior Court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the cell phone evidence, during which the State conceded that the arrest was unlawful. The court assumed the arrest and seizure of the phone were unlawful but denied the motion to suppress, finding that the evidence was obtained through an independent source: the search warrant based on information from the juvenile and the missing person investigation, not the arrest itself. The defendant was convicted on all charges after a bench trial on stipulated facts.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that, even assuming the arrest and seizure were unlawful, the evidence from the cell phone was admissible under the independent source doctrine. The search warrant was supported by information independent of the unlawful arrest, and the police did not exploit the illegality to obtain the evidence. Therefore, the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the cell phone evidence. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged with multiple offenses, including second degree assault – domestic violence, kidnapping – domestic violence, criminal threatening, and simple assault – domestic violence, following an incident with his spouse in August 2020. The couple had a tumultuous relationship marked by financial disputes and prior altercations. During the charged incident, the defendant physically assaulted and threatened the complainant, leading her to obtain a restraining order the next day. While incarcerated, the defendant later attempted to contact the complainant in violation of that order.Before trial in the Superior Court, the State sought to introduce evidence of a prior assault by the defendant in July 2020, the complainant’s acquisition of a restraining order, and the defendant’s subsequent violation of that order. The defendant objected, but the Superior Court (Schulman, J.) admitted all three pieces of evidence, reasoning they were relevant to the defendant’s intent and the context of the relationship. At trial, the jury acquitted the defendant on one count of simple assault but convicted him on all other charges.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Supreme Court held that the probative value of the July 2020 incident was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and that the evidence of the restraining order and its violation improperly relied on propensity inferences. The Court further found that these errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given their potential impact on the jury’s assessment of the complainant’s credibility. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Moses" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and sexual assault based on conduct that occurred when the victim was between fifteen and seventeen years old. The defendant, who was significantly older than the victim, met her when she was nine and became a father figure and religious leader in her life, especially as her relationship with her biological father became distant. The victim spent considerable time with the defendant and his family, referred to him as “dad,” and worked for him. The alleged assaults occurred over several years in various locations, but the charges did not include an initial incident in Manchester when the victim was fifteen.In the Superior Court, the defendant moved to prevent the State from arguing that his roles as a father figure and religious leader constituted a “position of authority” under the relevant statute, and to exclude evidence of the uncharged Manchester incident. The court denied both motions, allowing the State to present its arguments and evidence. After a twelve-day jury trial with twenty-one witnesses, the jury found the defendant guilty on nine counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and eight counts of sexual assault.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that the statutory term “position of authority” does not require a formal or official relationship, and that roles such as father figure or religious leader can qualify. The court found sufficient evidence that the defendant’s role as a father figure gave him authority over the victim, which he used to coerce her. Even assuming error in admitting evidence of the Manchester incident or in allowing arguments about religious authority, the court concluded any such error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt based on the father figure relationship. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

The defendant, a visiting nurse, was charged with two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA) and four counts of misdemeanor sexual assault (MSA) based on events that allegedly occurred while he was providing care to the victim. The charges included allegations under RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) (sexual assault by medical provider) and I(i) (sexual assault by surprise). The victim was over the age of 13 at the time of the alleged assaults.The defendant notified the court of his intention to assert a consent defense under RSA 626:6, I. The State moved to preclude this defense, leading to substantial pre-trial litigation. The trial court directed the parties to prepare an interlocutory appeal statement, which was approved and transferred to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed three questions: whether consent is a defense under RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1); whether RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and whether consent is a defense under RSA 632-A:2, I(i). The court held that consent is not a defense under RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) because the Nurse Practice Act (NPA) prohibits sexual conduct between nurses and patients, making such conduct professionally unethical or unacceptable. The court also found that RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague.Regarding RSA 632-A:2, I(i), the court concluded that consent cannot be a legal defense because if the defendant admitted to causing sexual contact through concealment or surprise, it would inherently mean the victim did not consent. However, the defendant may present evidence of the victim's consent to support his theory of the case, allowing the factfinder to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.The court answered all three questions in the negative and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Allore" on Justia Law

Tyrese Harris was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder, one count of falsifying evidence, and one count of reckless conduct. The incident occurred on October 29, 2022, when Harris, driving with his fiancée, had a confrontation with the victim, a truck driver. After a traffic altercation, the victim approached Harris's vehicle aggressively, and Harris shot him in the head, resulting in the victim's death. Harris then fled the scene, drove erratically, and later hid at a friend's apartment. The police did not recover the firearm used in the shooting.The Superior Court admitted a recorded phone call between Harris and his mother, where Harris discussed the incident, and instructed the jury on the reasonable necessity of Harris's use of deadly force. Harris's motion to dismiss the falsifying evidence charge for insufficient evidence was denied. The jury convicted Harris on all charges.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the recorded phone call, finding it highly probative of Harris's state of mind and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also upheld the jury instruction on the reasonable necessity of using deadly force, aligning with the common law requirement that such force must be reasonably necessary.However, the court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction for falsifying physical evidence. The State's circumstantial evidence did not exclude all reasonable conclusions other than Harris's guilt, as the firearm was never recovered, and there was no direct evidence that Harris concealed or destroyed it. Consequently, the court reversed the conviction for falsifying evidence but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The defendant, Matthew Raymond, was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court on four counts of second-degree assault, six counts of simple assault-domestic violence, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of misdemeanor criminal mischief. The incidents occurred in May and June 2022, but the victim did not report them until August 2022. The defendant was subsequently charged with these offenses.Before the trial, the State intended to call Dr. Scott Hampton, an expert in intimate partner violence, to testify. The defendant moved to exclude Hampton’s testimony, arguing it was unreliable under RSA 516:29-a. The State countered that Hampton would provide general education on domestic violence dynamics without discussing the specific facts of the case. The Trial Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Hampton qualified to offer expert opinions in the field of intimate partner violence, allowing his testimony with limitations. The jury trial proceeded, and the defendant was convicted on most charges, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and upheld the trial court’s decision to admit Hampton’s testimony. The court found that Hampton’s extensive experience and specialized knowledge in domestic violence met the reliability standards under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 702 and RSA 516:29-a. The court noted that Hampton’s testimony was based on his experience with thousands of domestic violence victims and offenders over two decades, which provided a sufficient basis for his general education testimony. The court also distinguished this case from State v. Keller, where the expert’s methodology was applied to the specific facts of the case. Here, Hampton’s testimony was general and not case-specific, making the RSA 516:29-a, II(a) factors less applicable. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding no reversible error. View "State v. Raymond" on Justia Law

James Dunbar was serving a suspended sentence for criminal mischief and was on probation for being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. A protection order prohibited him from contacting the victim in any form. Despite this, Dunbar posted messages on his public Facebook page that referred to the victim and her deceased husband using aliases similar to their names. Some posts included threats and were intended to notify the victim. Facebook users saw these posts and informed the victim, who then viewed them.Dunbar was arrested and charged with violating the protection order and stalking. He was found not guilty on all charges. However, his probation officer alleged that these actions violated the terms of his probation, and the State moved to impose his suspended sentence. The Superior Court found that Dunbar's Facebook posts violated the protection order, thus violating his probation and suspended sentence terms. The court imposed a portion of his suspended sentence and sentenced him to twelve months in the house of corrections, all suspended, for the probation violation. Dunbar's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court held that Dunbar's Facebook posts constituted indirect contact with the victim, violating the protection order. The court also determined that the posts were true threats and not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision that Dunbar violated the terms of his probation and suspended sentence, and upheld the imposed punishments. View "State v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jessica Warren, was convicted of driving after suspension or revocation, with death resulting, under RSA 263:64, V-a, following a jury trial in the Superior Court. On September 5, 2018, Warren, whose license was suspended, drove a minivan in Concord, passing a delivery truck that blocked a bike lane. Her minivan collided with a bicyclist, who died from the collision, and then veered into the opposite lane, hitting a curb and another vehicle.In the Superior Court, Warren requested a jury instruction that required the State to prove she knowingly committed the act that violated a rule of the road. The court, however, issued an instruction that did not require the State to prove any mental state regarding the "unlawful operation" element. Warren objected, but the court overruled her objection, and the jury convicted her.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. Warren argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the "knowingly" mens rea applied to the "unlawful operation" element of RSA 263:64, V-a. The State contended that the statute omits a culpable mental state and that the "knowingly" mens rea is inapplicable to the "unlawful operation" element. The Supreme Court agreed with the State that the "knowingly" mens rea is inapplicable but concluded that "criminal negligence" is the appropriate mental state for the "unlawful operation" element. The court held that the trial court erred by not including this mens rea element in its jury instruction.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that "criminal negligence" is the appropriate mens rea for the "unlawful operation" element of RSA 263:64, V-a. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Gene L. Zarella, who is charged with four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. Following his indictment, Zarella sought the production of the complainant's confidential counseling and hospitalization records for in camera review by the trial court. The trial court granted these motions and reviewed the records, finding them discoverable. Zarella then moved for in camera review of additional records from various private counseling, mental health, and medical care providers. The trial court granted these motions as well.The complainant, joined by one of the counseling providers, moved to intervene and quash the orders for production, citing statutory privileges and the complainant's constitutional right to privacy under Part I, Article 2-b of the New Hampshire Constitution. The Superior Court (Ignatius, J.) granted the motion to intervene but denied the motion to quash, applying the standard from State v. Gagne, which allows in camera review if the defendant establishes a reasonable probability that the records contain material and relevant information.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Part I, Article 2-b of the State Constitution abrogates the application of the Gagne standard to records held by private organizations, as established in State v. Cressey. The court held that to obtain in camera review and disclosure of confidential or privileged records held by private organizations, the defendant must follow the procedures outlined in RSA 173-C:5 for records privileged under RSA chapter 173-C or demonstrate an essential need for the records for those privileged under RSA 329-B:26 and RSA 330-A:32. The court also mandated that notice and an opportunity to object must be provided to the individual whose records are sought. The court vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "State v. Zarella" on Justia Law

In August 2019, law enforcement began investigating the Bradley family following a referral from the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families. The investigation revealed that one of the children had recorded an audio conversation between the defendant, Deborah Ann Bradley, and her husband, Kenneth Bradley, discussing inappropriate behavior by Mr. Bradley. The recording was found on an iPad during a search of the Bradleys' home. The defendant was later charged with multiple counts, including accomplice to falsifying physical evidence and tampering with witnesses.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to exclude the audio recording, concluding that the spousal privilege under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 504 did not apply to the recording itself, only to testimony about confidential marital communications. The court reasoned that the rule does not bar the introduction of the recording or testimony about it.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the spousal privilege in Rule 504 precludes only testimony about confidential marital communications and does not extend to other types of evidence, such as audio recordings. The court emphasized that the plain language of Rule 504 limits the privilege to testimony and does not support a broader interpretation that would exclude all evidence related to marital communications. The court declined to make its ruling prospective only, as it was based on the plain language of the rule and did not alter the scope of the privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Bradley" on Justia Law