Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Nathaniel Smith appealed a superior court order denying his motion to enforce the terms of a plea agreement that he entered into with the State. He argued the trial court erred in ruling that the sentences addressed in the agreement would run consecutively to an unrelated sentence that he was serving at the time that he executed the agreement. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concurred, vacated the trial court order and remanded for correction. View "New Hampshire v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Eldridge appealed his convictions by jury on one count each of possession of a controlled drug, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argued the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that the immunity afforded by RSA 318-B:28-b (2017) did not apply to the offense of possession with intent to sell a controlled drug; (2) requiring him to waive that statutory immunity before instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of possession; and (3) denying his motion to suppress evidence. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that the immunity provided by RSA 318-B:28-b did not extend to the offense of possession with intent to sell. However, the Court vacated defendant’s conviction for possession because the Court held that, under the circumstances in this case, defendant was entitled to both an instruction on the offense of possession and the statutory immunity. Furthermore, the Court concluded the police officers’ initial warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment was justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. View "New Hampshire v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

Defendant Paulson Papillon was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit murder, and as an accomplice to reckless second-degree murder. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel; (2) admitting evidence, in violation of New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b), that he offered to facilitate the murder of another suspected police informant; and (3) finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Papillon" on Justia Law

In 2007, defendant Jason Candello was sentenced on two felonies pursuant to a negotiated plea. On one felony conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a stand-committed sentence of two and one-half to nine years (sentence 1). The maximum of that sentence was subsequently reduced to seven years. On the other felony, the trial court imposed a three-and-one-half-to-seven year sentence that was to run consecutively to the stand-committed sentence on the first felony (sentence 2). The court suspended sentence 2 for ten years subject to conditions. At some point before November 12, 2012, defendant was paroled on sentence 1. On November 12, 2012, defendant committed second degree assault. Defendant’s parole was revoked, and, on November 18, 2012, he resumed serving sentence 1. Sentence 1 ended on March 9, 2014. On March 6, 2013, the trial court set defendant’s bail on the second degree assault charge at $10,000 cash, which he was unable to pay. In February 2014, a jury convicted the defendant of the second degree assault charge. He was sentenced on that charge on May 6, 2014 (sentence 3). Sentence 3 was to run consecutively to sentence 2. On that day, the trial court also imposed sentence 2 (which had previously been suspended for ten years). In December 2018, defendant filed a motion requesting that the trial court amend sentences 2 and 3 so that they ran concurrently, instead of consecutively. The court denied his motion, and defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Candello" on Justia Law

Defendant Mohammad Salimullah was convicted by jury on one count of attempted murder, two counts of first degree assault, one count of second degree assault, and one count of reckless conduct. He appealed: (1) a superior court order denying his motion to dismiss on the grounds that the State failed to comply with RSA 135:17-a (2015) (amended 2019) in bringing indictments against him in 2016; (2) another superior court order denying his motion for a competency determination prior to sentencing; and (3) a third superior court order imposing a no-contact condition on a stand-committed sentence. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the imposition of the no-contact condition, but otherwise affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Salimullah" on Justia Law

Defendants James Folley and his wife, Karen Folley, appealed their convictions after a joint jury trial on two counts of theft by unauthorized taking as a principal or accomplice, and as to James, an additional count of financial exploitation of an elderly adult. They also appealed the trial court’s restitution order requiring that they pay restitution to an assisted living facility where the victim resided at the time of the crimes. To the New Hampshire Supreme Court they argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; and (2) the trial court erred by ordering them to pay restitution to the facility because it is not entitled to compensation under RSA 651:62 (2016). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed defendants’ convictions but reversed the restitution order because the economic loss claimed by the facility was not a direct result of the defendants’ criminal conduct. View "New Hampshire v. Folley" on Justia Law

Defendant Ernest Jones appealed a superior court order denying his motion to suppress evidence that led to his conviction on one count of possession of a controlled drug. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that he was not seized during his encounter with two Concord police officers; and (2) refusing to consider his race in its seizure analysis. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the State failed to meet its burden of showing that defendant was not seized. Furthermore, the Court concluded that race was one circumstance that courts may consider in conducting the totality of the circumstances seizure analysis. View "New Hampshire v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant Christina Hill appealed a superior court order releasing her before trial on the condition that she pay $10,000 cash bail, among other conditions. Defendant was charged with, and pleaded not guilty to, three drug-related charges: possession of heroin, possession of crack cocaine, and sale of crack cocaine. At her arraignment, the State requested that the court preventively detain defendant because her release posed a danger to the community. According to the State, defendant engaged in the charged conduct while released on her own recognizance on another drug possession charge, and on a suspended sentence. The State contended that, by possessing and selling controlled drugs and engaging in other conduct, defendant violated the terms of her release. Although, since filing her appeal, defendant resolved the charges against her by plea, the parties agreed her appeal was not moot “because it presents legal issues that are of pressing public interest and are capable of repetition yet evading review.” They have asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to decide “the primary issue raised in her bail appeal — whether under RSA 597:2, a trial court may set bail at an amount the defendant cannot meet, on the sole basis that the defendant is a flight risk.” The Supreme Court agreed this issue was not moot, and held that RSA 597:2 (Supp. 2018) (amended 2019) permitted a trial court to set unaffordable bail “on the sole basis that the defendant is a flight risk.” View "New Hampshire v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant Henry Carnevale was convicted by jury of felony reckless conduct, with a deadly weapon, and conduct after an accident. Defendant was driving north on Interstate 89 in Grantham, New Hampshire, in his 7,300-pound sport utility vehicle, when he began tailgating a Volkswagen Jetta transporting the victim (driver of the VW) and his three-year-old son. Approaching a construction area, defendant made a hand gesture and moved into the right lane, passing extremely close to the rear of the VW. Defendant abruptly cut back into the left lane, causing the rear of the SUV to hit the front of the VW. The victim was forced to brake heavily and veer right, losing control of his car, and crashing into a guardrail located above an underpass at approximately 65-70 miles per hour. After the crash, there were VW parts, fluids, and tire marks all over the highway. The victim and his son were transported by ambulance to the hospital. After the accident, defendant drove away from the scene, but police identified his vehicle’s license plate and arrested him later that day. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that he acted “recklessly” and that his automobile constituted a “deadly weapon.” He also argued the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Carnevale" on Justia Law

Defendant Timothy Barr was convicted by jury on two counts of manufacturing, and one count of possessing, child sexual abuse images. He argued that: (1) RSA chapter 649-A (2016 & Supp. 2018), as applied, violated his right to the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution because the images underlying his convictions depict legal sexual conduct; and (2) the trial court erred by denying his request to cross-examine the minor depicted in the images about her prior sexual history. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed because child pornography depicting an actual child remained a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment, and the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s cross-examination request was not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. View "New Hampshire v. Barr" on Justia Law