Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Daniel Thompson appealed his conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI) for which he was sentenced to enhanced penalties for a third offense. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him for a third DWI because the State failed to submit evidence of his two prior convictions in its case-in-chief. Finding no merit to Defendant's argument, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant Thavone Souksamrane appealed his convictions for criminal threatening and being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in permitting the State to question him about the veracity of other witnesses. The State conceded that the questioning in this case was improper. However, because of the "overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt," the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Souksamrane" on Justia Law

Defendant Alan Lathrop appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that Alderberry Lane in Moultonborough, where the accident took place that ultimately resulted in his arrest, was a "way" (and therefore not open for public use) for purposes of the DWI statute; because only members, guests and a loose category of invitees are permitted to use the road, it is not "open." After review of the statutory authority, the Supreme Court rejected Defendant's contention: " it would be contrary to legislative intent to construe the statute to provide that a private road in a lakeside community that is used by residents…. Is a DWI-free zone." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Lathrop" on Justia Law

Defendant Peter Gibbs appealed his convictions on two counts of criminal restraint and one count of being an armed career criminal. On appeal, Defendant argued that: (1) his right against double jeopardy was violated when he was twice convicted of a single criminal restraint; (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of being an armed career criminal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the facts of this case demonstrated that the victim was continuously confined from the time he was tied in the basement until the point at which he was able to free himself and, therefore, the defendant engaged in only one episode of criminal restraint. Accordingly, one of the two criminal restraint convictions and sentences must be vacated. The Court vacated one count of Defendant's conviction, but affirmed in all other respects. View "New Hampshire v. Gibbs, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant Cory Furgal appealed his conviction of second-degree murder. At trial, outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury that defendant was entitled to use deadly force against the victim for self-defense. The State objected, arguing that the language of "the statute" and case law did not support the defendant's requested instruction. Defendant objected to the instructions the trial court ultimately used, outside the presence of the jury. But the trial court explained that it did not include defendant's "in-concert" instruction because it was not consistent with the language of "the statute." The Supreme Court was not satisfied that defendant's request was inconsistent with statutory law. However, based on the entirety of the instruction, the Court concluded that a reasonable juror would have understood whether the victim, acting alone or in concert with others, was about to use unlawful deadly force against defendant. View "New Hampshire v. Furgal" on Justia Law

Defendant Elliott Bell appealed a superior court decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence that he possessed less than one ounce of "ecstasy." Defendant argued that he was unlawfully seized under the State and Federal Constitutions when the arresting officer said the officers would be “on their way” as soon as the defendant produced identification. He contended that the trial court erred in concluding the police had the requisite reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity, and that the evidence obtained following the seizure must be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Finding no merit to Defendant's arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Bell" on Justia Law

Respondent Joan M. appealed a family division order that terminated her co-guardianship over minor Matthew L. filed by Mary S., Matthew's biological mother and co-guardian. The parties were in a serious relationship from 2004 to 2008. In 2006, Mary became pregnant and gave birth to Matthew in 2007. At that time, the parties petitioned the court to appoint them as co-guardians. In early 2008, however, Mary ended her relationship with Joan and subsequently petitioned the court to terminate Joan's co-guardianship. The motion was denied in late 2009. In 2010, Mary filed a new motion to terminate. While proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court had decided "In re Guardianship of Reena D." (163 N.H. 107 (2011)). The parties agreed that "Reena D." applied to the 2010 motion to terminate guardianship. The trial court ultimately granted termination of Joan's guardianship, and she subsequently appealed. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Guardianship of Matthew L." on Justia Law

Petitioner David Ellis appealed a superior court order that rescinded a non-compete agreement and ordered partial restitution as a remedy. Respondents Candia Trailers and Snow Equipment, Inc. and its principals Jeffrey and Suzanne Goff, cross-appealed the rescission of the non-compete agreement. Ellis signed an asset purchase agreement (APA), non-compete agreement (NCA) and an inventory purchase agreement (IPA) in relation to the sale of Precision Truck, a business the Goffs owned. The Goffs executed the NCA with regard to Ellis' operation of Precision Truck to remain in effect for seven years. However, the NCA could end sooner if Ellis breached terms of the IPA. One of the terms of the IPA was that Ellis would pay for Precision Truck's inventory by June 1, 2007. Within weeks of signing the NCA, Goff began competing with Precision Truck. Ellis thereafter failed to purchase all of Precision Truck's inventory by June 1, 2007. Ellis subsequently sued for breach of contract and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the NCA, IPA and APA as three separate agreements, each with its own terms and remedies for breach, and that Ellis breached the IPA and Goff breached the NCA. Both parties argued that the trial court abused its discretion when rescinding the NCA and awarding partial restitution to Ellis. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in determining that the three agreements were severable, and as such, the NCA could not be rescinded without rescinding the IPA and the APA too. Accordingly, the Court reversed the restitution award and remanded to the trial court for a determination of what remedies were available. View "Ellis v. Candia Trailers & Snow Equipment, Inc." on Justia Law

Carleton, LLC appealed a superior court order that denied its motion to vacate and set aside articles of dissolution filed by MTS Development Corporation (MTS) and that denied its renewed motion to enforce creditor status. At issue at trial was the valuation of Carleton, LLC's half ownership interest in MTS which Adrienne Balagur sought to acquire. After the trial court valued the ownership interest, Balagur moved to terminate Carleton, LLC's rights and status as a shareholder of MTS. The trial court granted this motion, and held that Carleton, LLC would be considered a creditor of MTS until it received money for the shares purchased. MTS then filed a notice of intention ot adopt article of dissolution. Carleton objected, moving to vacate or set aside the articles. Carleton argued that Adrienne Balagur's election to purchase Carleton's shares was irrevocable, and that the shareholders could not validly authorize the articles of dissolution. The trial court denied Carleton's motion, but agreed that an accounting of MTS' books and records should occur. On appeal, Carleton contended that the trial court erred in decision denying its motion and making it an MTS creditor. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Carleton, LLC v. Balagur" on Justia Law

Petitioner New Hampshire Independent Pharmacy Association (NHIPA) appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to the New Hampshire Insurance Department. At issue were the requirements of RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII which were enacted by the legislature in 2007. When these statutes first took effect, NHID interpreted them to require health benefit plans and health insurers providing prescription drug benefits to permit their insureds to purchase 90-day supplies of prescription drugs from retail pharmacies, provided that certain conditions were met. Under this construction, health insurers and health benefit plans could not limit coverage of 90-day supplies to those filled through mail-order pharmacies. In 2010, NHID changed its position and began reading these statutes as permitting health insurers and health benefit plans to limit coverage for 90-day prescription quantities to mail-order pharmacies. In response, NHIPA brought this action for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus, asking the trial court to direct NHID to enforce RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII in a manner requiring health insurers and health benefit plans to cover 90-day supplies of prescription drugs filled at retail pharmacies. NHID moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted its motion, ruling that RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII did not impose such a requirement on health insurers and health benefit plans. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the language of RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII to be plain and unambiguous, and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. View "New Hampshire Independent Pharmacy Assn. v. New Hampshire Ins. Dept." on Justia Law