Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Anthony F. appealed an order by the Derry District Court that denied his motion to suppress evidence that supported a child delinquency petition against him. The juvenile was stopped by school officials as he was leaving campus one morning in 2008. He refused to return, stating he did not feel well. Assistant principals escorted him back to the school where he was searched. One assistant principal asked the juvenile if he had "anything on [him] that [he] shouldn’t have on school property." The juvenile eventually handed over a small bag of marijuana that he retrieved from inside his sock. Subsequently, a delinquency petition was filed. The juvenile moved to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing that the search was unconstitutional under the New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions. The State countered that there was no search under the law, but even if a search occurred, it was constitutionally valid. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the facts of this case did not support a finding of reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search of this juvenile would turn up contraband. The assistant principals searched the juvenile because it was school policy to search all students who return to school after leaving an assigned area. The record reveals, however, that the juvenile was leaving the school, not returning. It was school officials who forced his return. The Court held that the search was "suspicionless" and as such, illegal. The Court reversed the decision in this case and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Anthony F. " on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal of two orders of the Conway Family Division that granted Petitioner Tami Mallett's motions to amend and for attorney's fees. Petitioner and Respondent Michael Mallett were involved in a long-term relationship, but never married. During the nearly fourteen years they were together, they had two children and held themselves out as a married couple. They wore wedding rings, shared the same last name, owned property together, and worked jointly in business enterprises. In 2009, Tami filed a petition for divorce. In response, Michael filed a motion to dismiss, based upon the fact that he and Tami never married. The trial court granted Michael's motion in part, but ruled that it would nonetheless "address all issues of parenting and child support raised" in the petition for divorce. The court also ruled that it had "equitable authority to make certain adjustments of the rights and interests of the parties," and granted Tami leave to amend her petition, or to file parenting and equity petitions to more fully develop her theories related to, among other things, the division of the parties' personal and real property. Tami then filed a motion to amend, and later a motion for attorney's fees. In two separate orders, the court granted both motions. Michael moved for reconsideration of the orders, or in the alternative, for an interlocutory transfer. The trial court granted the request for an interlocutory transfer, and transferred six questions to the Supreme Court. "While unmarried parties are expressly within the family division’s jurisdiction for purposes of child-related matters, [the] statutory scheme plainly restricts all divorce remedies and property distribution to married couples." The Supreme Court reversed both of the trial court's orders in favor of Tami and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Tami & Michael Mallett " on Justia Law

Defendant Jason Wilmot appealed his convictions on two counts of first-degree assault for recklessly causing serious bodily injury to a person under thirteen years of age. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in not setting aside the jury's verdict because the evidence could not have supported a conclusion that his statements to police were voluntary, and without those statements the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal standards, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Wilmot " on Justia Law

Defendant Jack Ward was convicted on thirteen counts of possessing child pornography. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant lacked probable cause to search his residence and his computer. Upon review of the trial court record and applicable legal standard, the Supreme Court found evidence sufficient to support the search of Defendant's residence and computer. The Court therefore affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Ward " on Justia Law

Respondent Thomas Henry appealed the final decree in his divorce from Petitioner Marty Henry. He argued that the Derry Family Division erred when it granted Petitioner a fault-based divorce. He also challenged the trial court's division of the parties' property and its decision to award the petitioner alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court's decision to grant a fault-based divorce. Furthermore, the Court concluded trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of alimony. View "In the Matter of Marty & Thomas Henry " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jonathan Doyle appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to Defendants the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development and the Monadnock State Park Manager (collectively, DRED), and that denied his motion for summary judgment. In 2009, Plaintiff staged a "Bigfoot" sighting (with himself dressed as Bigfoot) on Mount Monadnock. At the top of the mountain, he put on a costume, and filmed conversations he had with other hikers. On his way back down, he encountered two park staff members, and persuaded them to write a note saying there had been a "sighting" on the mountain. To garner publicity for his next appearance, Plaintiff had a friend write a press release for the local paper. Much to their annoyance, Park officials began fielding media calls trying to confirm whether reports of the sighting were true. When Plaintiff returned for more filming, he was confronted by park officials checking whether Plaintiff had a "special-use permit" to continue filming. With none, Plaintiff and his crew were asked to leave the mountain. Plaintiff subsequently brought a declaratory judgment action against DRED, arguing that Res 7306.01(a) violated the right to free speech contained in the New Hampshire Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also sought a permanent injunction, nominal damages, costs and fees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DRED, ruling that Plaintiff failed to show that Res 7306.01(a) was unconstitutional. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the trial court erred because Res 7306.01(a) was void for vagueness, overbroad on its face and not narrowly tailored, and also overbroad as applied to Plaintiff's small-scale project. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of DRED: "More troubling is that this regulation needlessly stifles political speech, an integral component to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution." View "Doyle v. New Hampshire Dep't of Resources & Econ. Dev." on Justia Law

Petitioner Nilesh D. appealed a probate court order that denied his motion to terminate the guardianship over his minor daughter Reena, which had been previously awarded to his step-mother, Respondent Hasu D. Petitioner was granted guardianship over Reena who was then twenty-months old. Petitioner and his wife sought the guardianship because they were going overseas to start a business, and to visit the wife's family. The court granted a temporary guardianship, and following the hearing, the court appointend Respondent and her husband, Petitioner's father, to be Reena's guardians. In 2003, Petitioner's father died, and Respondent was appointed Reena's sole guardian. In 2003, Petitioner filed a motion to terminate the guardianship, asserting it was no longer necessary because its purpose was fulfilled. A final hearing on the motion to terminate would be held two months after Petitioner submitted an assessment of his alcohol use. In the meantime, the guardianship continued. In 2004, Respondent moved to dismiss the guardianship because Petitioner failed to submit an alcohol use assessment. The trial court denied the motion to terminate without prejudice to its future renewal. Petitioner did not renew his motion until 2007. The trial court held a hearing in 2009, and on the first day of the hearing, Petitioner submitted the assessment. Ultimately the court decided that Petitioner and his wife failed to show that terminating the guardianship would not "adversely affect [their daughter's] psychological well-being." Petitioner appealed the court's decision. Concluding that a "clear and convincing" standard of proof applied to a guardian's burden of proof in a proceeding to terminate a guardianship established by consent, the Supreme Court found that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof in Petitioner's case. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration under the proper burden of proof. View "In re Guardianship of Reena D. " on Justia Law

Petitioner Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. appealed an award by the Commissioner of the State Banking Department in favor of Respondent Rachel Nicholson based on claims under the Consumer Protection Act. The issue stemmed from Respondent contacting Countrywide in 2005 in order to purchase a house. She spoke with two Countrywide agents who promised that they would "investigate and present her with the best [financing] program." At the hearing before the Commissioner, Respondent testified the agents orally approved her for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage loan at 6% interest. Thereafter, Respondent spoke with agents on a weekly basis regarding the property purchase and loan. The agents did not raise any problems with the loan application until two days before the scheduled closing date. On that day, despite the fact that there were no changes in Respondent's employment status or credit since the application had been filed, the agents informed her that Countrywide would not be able to grant a fixed interest loan for the amount she needed. They informed her that to purchase the home, she would need to apply for two different loans. On the scheduled closing date, as instructed by the agents, Respondent applied for two new loans at higher rates of interest but for shorter durations. After multiple hearings, the Commissioner ultimately entered an order ruling that Countrywide had committed "an unfair or deceptive practice" under state law, and ordered that Countrywide reimburse Respondent for all monies paid prior to, at and after closing, as well as discharge the first mortgage and void the second. Furthermore, Countrywide was ordered to quitclaim the property to Respondent. Finding that the Commissioner should not have granted a hearing on the merits of Respondent's claims, the Supreme Court vacated the award entered in her favor. View "Appeal of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. " on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court considered an order of the superior court which denied Defendant Empire Automotive Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss two indictments charging with with felony violations of the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Defendant was indicted by the grand jury on two counts of violating the CPA by allegedly placing inspection stickers (indicative of having passed inspection) on two automobiles sold to consumers under installment sales contracts when Defendant knew the vehicles had not passed the on-board diagnostic emissions tests required by the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that its conduct was exempt from the CPA and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the banking department, and that the department of justice which initiated the criminal proceedings, lacked authority to do so. Finding that the "trade or commerce" involved in this case involved the sale of motor vehicles and clearly brought Defendant's actions well within the scope of the CPA, the Supreme Court held that the trial record reflected substantial evidence to support Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Empire Automotive Group, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Kristin Ruggiero was convicted on twelve counts of falsifying physical evidence, and on one count of making a false report. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she argued that the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to exclude audio/video recordings as violative of New Hampshire's wiretap statute; (2) in allowing into evidence, without proper authentication, certain e-mail messages she purportedly sent; and (3) in denying her motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of each of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. View "New Hampshire v. Ruggiero " on Justia Law