Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In consolidated appeals, defendant Samuel Pennock, appealed his conviction by a jury of felony simple assault, and the superior court’s denial of his post-conviction motion to vacate his sentence and for a new trial. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by: (1) substantively admitting the victim’s pretrial oral and written statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (N.H. R. Ev. 803(2)); (2) denying his motion to dismiss the simple assault charge; (3) denying his post-conviction motion to reduce that charge to a class B misdemeanor and to resentence him accordingly; and (4) denying his post-conviction motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Pennock" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, defendant James Houghton was convicted on 23 charges of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) 15 of the charges involved depictions of individuals under the age of 18; and (2) one of the charges involved a depiction of “sexually explicit conduct.” After review, the Supreme Court concluded that, as to nine of the charges, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals depicted in the photographs were under the age of 18. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. View "New Hampshire v. Houghton" on Justia Law

Defendant was a Michigan-based company that “assists corporations in complying with regulations associated with the conduct of corporate business by supplying annual corporate consent documents” by way of direct mail. Defendant mailed solicitations to potential customers. Its New Hampshire mailing address was “a private mailbox used as a clearinghouse to receive and bundle orders from New Hampshire customers.” According to defendant, as a result of these direct mailings, it made sales in New Hampshire totaling $12,625. A grand jury indicted defendant on 27 felony violations of the Consumer Protection Act, encompassing three sets of nine charges, all stemming from defendant’s allegedly deceptive use of the New Hampshire mailing address in 2013. The State appealed a Superior Court order dismissing the 27 indictments, ruling that the indictments were defective because they alleged that the defendant acted with the mental state of “knowingly,” and not “purposely.” Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "New Hampshire v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Gilley was convicted on one count of class A felony burglary. The burglary statute elevated the offense from a class B to a class A felony when it was "perpetrated in the dwelling of another at night." Before trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class A felony indictment, arguing that the house he had burglarized was not the dwelling of another and, therefore, did not trigger the felony enhancement under that statute. He contended that the house had ceased to be the "dwelling of another" because its resident had moved out and listed the house for sale. The Superior Court denied the motion. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the house did not lose its character as a dwelling when left vacant and listed for sale, it affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Gilley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Scott McCarthy appealed a Superior Court decision to dismiss his defamation action against defendants, the Manchester Police Department (MPD) and MPD Sergeant Craig Rousseau, on grounds that municipal immunity barred his claim. William Socha was working on a construction site in Manchester. At around noon, Socha noticed a truck parked on the site and went to tell the driver to move the vehicle. As he approached, he saw that the man in the driver's seat had his pants down, exposing his genitalia. Socha also observed a young female in the truck's passenger seat. The passenger appeared to Socha to be about twelve years old and to have some kind of disability. Socha called the police, but, by the time an MPD officer arrived, the vehicle had left. Socha gave the officer a description of the truck, its license plate number, and a physical description of the driver. The police determined that the truck was registered to plaintiff, who resided in Allenstown. A short time later, a detective from the Allenstown Police Department observed the plaintiff arrive at his residence in a truck matching the description and license plate number Socha had provided. Plaintiff told the detective that he had been in Manchester around 12:30 p.m. that day to pick up a friend and her daughter. The MPD filed a complaint charging plaintiff with indecent exposure and lewdness, and arrested him pursuant to a warrant. The MPD had not identified the female passenger whom Socha had described. In an effort to identify her, Sgt. Rousseau posted an entry on the MPD blog, describing the incident and stating, in relevant part, that "[d]etectives of the MPD Juvenile Division now say that McCarthy, 41, was in fact the man who was exposing himself in the vehicle. McCarthy was subsequently arrested [and] charged with one count of indecent exposure." The entry then asked for information concerning the identity of the female passenger. No passenger was ever identified. On the day of plaintiff's criminal trial, Socha failed to come to court, and the State entered a nolle prosequi. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action against defendants, alleging that Rousseau's post on the MPD blog stating that plaintiff was "in fact" guilty of the crime was defamatory. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from suits that were not authorized by RSA chapter 507-B. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarthy v. Manchester Police Dept." on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Boisvert appealed his conviction for welfare fraud. Defendant was the father of Carrie Gray's two children. He and Gray moved into a Bristol apartment in 2009 or 2010. Defendant's name was removed from the lease at some point prior to late 2010. On December 31, 2010, defendant filed an application for public assistance. On January 14, 2011, he met with a department of health and human services representative and stated that he was homeless and had no resources; he was certified to receive benefits. Defendant was recertified for benefits at six-month intervals, and again reported in June 2011 and December 2011 that he was homeless. Between December 2010 and March 2012, Gray received medical, food stamp, and cash public assistance. The total amount of assistance that she received was calculated based upon a household consisting only of Gray and her children. She would not have been eligible for the same level of benefits if defendant had disclosed that he was living in the apartment. At some point, the special investigations unit of the department of health and human services received an allegation of welfare fraud concerning Gray. After interviewing witnesses and reviewing records provided by Gray and defendant, the investigator concluded that the case should be referred to the county attorney's office. Defendant was subsequently indicted on one count of welfare fraud. Because it was alleged that the value of the fraudulently obtained payments exceeded $1,000, the offense was classified as a class A felony. The case went to trial, and at the close of the State's case, defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence that he was living with Gray during the relevant time period. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found defendant guilty. This appeal followed. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the Superior Court erred by denying: (1) defendant's motion to dismiss that challenged the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) his request to give an accomplice liability jury instruction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Boisvert" on Justia Law

Defendant Vincent Cooper appealed his convictions after a jury found him guilty of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the Superior Court erred by allowing the State to play an audio recording of a 911 telephone call at trial, and by allowing the State, in closing argument, to comment on a fact not in evidence and to misstate the burden of proof. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Kean appealed a superior court order granting in part and denying in part his motion for return of property. Defendant, while wearing an official but discontinued Manchester Police jacket, was observed by a Manchester Police Officer walking in front of a Manchester Police Department substation. Although the jacket had been discontinued in 1999, it bore a current Manchester Police Department patch. The officer stopped defendant, concerned that a passerby might mistake him for a police officer. Defendant stated that an attorney had confirmed that it was legal for him to wear the jacket, but the officer told him that continued wearing of the jacket would likely subject him to arrest for impersonating a police officer. Defendant was not arrested at that time. The next day, defendant, wearing the same jacket, was again observed walking past the Manchester Police Department substation, this time by a different Manchester Police Officer. Aware of the prior encounter, defendant was placed under arrest for impersonating a police officer. At trial, the case was dismissed, in part because of the Stateís inability to produce a material witness to the alleged crime. Defendant then moved for the return of the jacket. Following a hearing, the court found that the jacket, and implicitly the patch, were "at all times the property of the City of Manchester." However, the trial court ordered that the jacket be returned to defendant, subject to the condition that the Manchester Police patch be removed from the jacket sleeve. The court found that forfeiture of the patch best served the public interest. This appeal followed. Defendant contended that: the State had the burden of disproving his ownership; the State did not meet its burden; and that the trial court, therefore, erred in finding that defendant was not the rightful owner of the patch. The Supreme Court found, after review, that the trial court did not err in finding that the State had demonstrated ownership of the jacket and patch by the City of Manchester. The trial court did err, however, in ordering that the jacket be returned to the defendant, finding that the trial court may have ordered forfeiture to the State without first providing notice to the City of Manchester. As such the trial court's order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Kean" on Justia Law

In 2013, defendant Louise Pinault was involved in two motor vehicle accidents in Hollis. She was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and with violating the “conduct after an accident” statute. Following a bench trial, during which defendant represented herself, she was acquitted on the DUI charge, but was convicted on a conduct after an accident charge. As part of her sentence, she was ordered to pay $525 in restitution for property damage. Defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the complaint alleging conduct after an accident was insufficient and that the restitution order was improper. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court improperly ordered restitution because the only offense for which she was convicted did not cause any economic loss; and (2) the complaint against her was insufficient to support her conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part. The Court found: (1) the plain language of the restitution statute clearly and unambiguously required a causal connection between the criminal act and the economic loss or damage, and the crime for which the defendant was convicted necessarily occurred afterward. As the damage was already done, the defendant’s criminal conduct did not cause the economic loss suffered; and (2) the alleged deficiency in the complaint did not affect the outcome of the case, therefore failing to demonstrate plain error. View "New Hampshire v. Pinault" on Justia Law

On June 7, 2012, Joseph Jennings was arrested on drug-related charges and released on personal recognizance bail to the custody of defendant. That day, he was also served with a temporary order of protection that prohibited him, and third parties acting on his behalf, from contacting a certain woman. Approximately 45 minutes after Jennings was released, the woman reported that defendant Amy Mouser was contacting her on Jennings’s behalf, in violation of the protective order. Police went to the woman’s residence, where he retrieved drug paraphernalia that the woman said belonged to Jennings. Defendant was ultimately charged with and convicted by jury on one count of possession of a controlled drug (cocaine). On appeal, she argued that the Superior Court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence after a search of her vehicle. After review of the specific facts entered in the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error in denying her motion, and affirmed the Superior Court. View "New Hampshire v. Mouser" on Justia Law