Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following his conviction on four counts of sale of a narcotic drug and the Supreme Court's affirmance of his conviction on appeal, defendant Sean Brown filed a motion for new trial in superior court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He appealed the Superior Court's decision concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his claim and, therefore, denying his motion for new trial. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was one of first impression: the proper forum in which a defendant should raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial, the State contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim and, therefore, should refrain from deciding it. In response, defendant argued that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim should be treated in the same manner as ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, which are routinely resolved in superior court. The trial court agreed with the State, adopting the view of a number of courts that such a claim “must be presented to the appellate court with jurisdiction over the appeal.” On appeal, the State’s position was different: it argued that claims should be brought in the original trial court. Thus, both parties urged the Court to adopt the same procedure. Because the Supreme Court agreed that “appellate courts have an interest in avoiding cases which require the Court to perform the unfamiliar task of fact finding,” the Court concluded that such claims should be heard in the trial court. "Because the trial court is better equipped to resolve the factual disputes that frequently underlie assertions of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we conclude that the proper forum for raising such claims is the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand." View "New Hampshire v. Brown " on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Tsopas faced multiple felony and misdemeanor charges arising out of a single alleged drunk driving incident. The district division set bail initially at $250,000 cash with conditions, but subsequently reduced it to $75,000 cash with conditions. The State asserted, and the defendant did not contest, that this reduction was in response to the defendant's request and over the State’s objection. Defendant thereafter appealed the Superior Court's order denying his third motion to modify bail. He contended on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to conduct a hearing on the motion or issue written findings of fact pursuant to RSA 597:6-e, II; and (2) unsustainably exercising its discretion by setting an "unreasonably high cash only bail." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Tsopas " on Justia Law

Defendant Chad Belleville appealed his conviction for second degree assault. He argued that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "New Hampshire v. Belleville " on Justia Law

Defendant Adam Mueller was convicted by jury on three counts of felony wiretapping. On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of the felony wiretapping statute required a "purposely" mental state when the statute called for a "willful" standard. The State agreed that the trial court’s instruction as to the requisite mens rea was erroneous, but asserted that reversal of the defendant’s convictions was not warranted because the prerequisites for application of the plain error doctrine have not been met. The Supreme Court agreed with defendant's argument on this issue, reversed the trial court, and remanded the case for a new trial.View "New Hampshire v. Mueller" on Justia Law

Defendant John Smith, appealed the sentence he received after being convicted by jury of receipt of stolen property. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court committed plain error by imposing a felony-level sentence instead of a misdemeanor-level sentence when the jury was not instructed that it had to find that the stolen property consisted of firearms. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Smith " on Justia Law

Defendant William Ramsey appealed his convictions on second degree assault, reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and criminal threatening. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court erred by : (1) denying his request to cross-examine the victim about an allegedly false statement she made on her 2010 application to renew her driver’s license; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence that he treated the victim’s dog well; and (3) imposing consecutive sentences for second degree assault and reckless conduct with a deadly weapon. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions.View "New Hampshire v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

Defendant Barion Perry appealed a superior court order that imposed a suspended sentence. He pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property and one count of stalking. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred in imposing the sentence based on conduct that occurred before he was released from custody; and (2) imposition of the sentence violated due process. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Perry" on Justia Law

Defendant Kurt Carpentino appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to amend one of his sentences based on an amendment to the statute under which his sentence was based. The statute in question took effect after the offense, but before defendant's conviction became final. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Carpentino" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Gness appealed his convictions for possession of psilocin with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana. On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a warrantless search of a desk drawer located in the office of his convenience store. Defendant argued that because the search did not meet the requirements of the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement, it violated his constitutional rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Gness" on Justia Law

Defendant Heidi Brouillette was charged with one count each of: burglary, second degree assault, and criminal mischief. At the time of her arraignment, defendant applied for appointed counsel. Based upon her financial affidavit, the trial court determined that she was indigent and qualified for appointed counsel. However, prior to February 2013 defendant retained private counsel and appointed counsel withdrew from the case. In that month, defendant stated her intent to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and filed a motion for services other than counsel requesting funds for an expert psychological evaluation. She attached a financial affidavit to her motion to support her claim of indigence. In denying the defendant's motion, the trial court noted that defendant retained private counsel: "the appearance of current counsel, an ability to pay is presumed." The record did not show that the trial court reviewed the defendant's attached financial affidavit in reaching its conclusion. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. With the trial court’s approval, defendant then sought interlocutory review of the court's ruling, and the Supreme Court granted her request to answer the question of whether RSA 604-A:6 (Supp. 2013) violated the State and Federal Constitutions' right to assistance of counsel, due process of law and equal protection if an indigent defendant not represented by appointed counsel was not provided with funding for necessary services other than counsel. The Supreme Court concluded that RSA 604-A:6 could not be read as prohibiting a court from authorizing necessary services to indigent criminal defendants who are self-represented, or who have pro bono, reduced fee, or retained counsel. With this conclusion, the Court did not reach whether the statute violated defendant's rights under the State or Federal Constitutions. View "New Hampshire v. Brouillette" on Justia Law