Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant John Brooks appealed his conviction following a jury trial for capital murder involving solicitation, capital murder in the course of a kidnapping, first degree murder (as an accomplice), and conspiracy to commit capital murder, in connection with the death of Jack Reid, Sr. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by: (1) permitting the State to authenticate documents by use of affidavits, rather than live testimony, in violation of his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) permitting an FBI agent to testify that the defendant's account may have been untruthful; (3) permitting the State to introduce a new opinion from the medical examiner during the trial; (4) failing to instruct the jury that it must determine the "predominating cause" of death, pursuant to "State v. Seymour;" (5) failing to instruct the jury that the solicitation variant of capital murder requires a finding that the defendant acted for his personal pecuniary gain; and (6) failing to instruct the jury that the kidnapping variant of capital murder requires a finding that the defendant intended to confine Reid to commit a crime other than murder. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Respondent Town of Moultonborough (Town) appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) which granted a petition for certification filed by the petitioner, New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NEPBA). In June 2010, the NEPBA filed a petition for certification of a proposed collective bargaining unit to be composed of "[a]ll sworn and non-sworn employees of the Town of Moultonborough Police Department excluding the Chief of Police." The proposed bargaining unit contained fourteen employees in seven different positions. The Town objected to the petition on the basis that RSA 273-A:8, I (2010) (amended 2011) requires a minimum of ten employees to form a bargaining unit, and that this requirement was not met because several of the positions were not statutorily eligible for inclusion. The Town argued that the executive assistant, communication specialist, and prosecutor positions, and a probationary employee lacked a "shared community of interest" with the remaining members of the proposed unit. The Town also argued that the executive assistant was a confidential employee, see RSA 273-A:1, IX(c) (2010), and that the sergeant and corporal positions were supervisory positions, see RSA 273-A:8, II (2010). Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the PELRB as to its inclusion of the sergeants and corporal in the bargaining unit, and affirmed the remainder of its determinations. The Court made no ruling on the eligibility of the bargaining unit after exclusion of the sergeant and corporal positions. View "Appeal of Town of Moultonborough" on Justia Law

Defendant Jonathan Charest appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court following his conviction by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the felon-in-possession charge, the trial court asked the jury to issue a special verdict on whether it unanimously found that the defendant possessed, rather than controlled or owned, a firearm. The jury answered "yes." The trial court sentenced the defendant to three to six years' imprisonment. The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of three years under RSA 651:2, II-g, which applies "[i]f a person is convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession . . . of a deadly weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm." At sentencing, the trial judge explained to the defendant, "You were just sentenced to the minimum. . . . I don't have any discretion . . . to do anything other than to sentence you . . . to . . . those terms." The defendant did not appeal his conviction, but argued that the trial court erred when it imposed the minimum mandatory sentence under RSA 651:2, II-g because: (1) the offense he was charged with, RSA 159:3, I, did not have as an element the possession of a firearm in a manner that rendered it a deadly weapon under RSA 625:11, V; and (2) the jury did not find that he possessed a deadly weapon within the meaning of RSA 625:11, V. Because the defendant did not make these arguments before the trial court, he invoked the plain error rule, which allowed the Supreme Court to correct errors not raised before the trial court. Because the trial court erroneously failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it at sentencing, the Court found that the error affected the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceedings. Accordingly, Defendant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Charest" on Justia Law

Defendant Calvin Dunn, III appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to vacate the imposition of a suspended sentence. In 2006, defendant pled guilty to one count of accomplice to burglary and one count of tampering with witnesses. Under the plea agreement, he was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of three and one-half to seven years, suspended for five years on the condition of his good behavior. On May 11, 2010, the Laconia District Court found defendant guilty of two counts of simple assault and one count of criminal threatening in connection with a physical altercation that occurred in 2009. Defendant appealed to the superior court for a jury trial. Later in May, the State filed a motion to impose the 2006 suspended sentence, alleging that the physical altercation constituted a violation of the good behavior requirement. The defendant requested that the hearing on the motion to impose be deferred until final disposition of the pending criminal trial. The State objected, and the court denied defendant's request. On July 6, 2011, defendant was tried by a jury on the charges stemming from the 2009 altercation. At trial, he argued that his actions were justified by self-defense. The jury acquitted him of all the charges. On July 21, defendant filed a motion to vacate the imposition of his sentence for the 2006 convictions. He argued that his actions in the 2009 altercation were justified by self-defense, as evidenced by the jury's acquittal on those charges, and, thus, he did not violate the good behavior requirement of his 2006 suspended sentence. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Respondent Richard Townsend, appealed a superior court order that: (1) granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, Town of Barrington (Town), on its claims that respondent used his property as a campground and his barn as a dwelling without proper Town approvals; and (2) awarded attorney's fees to the Town. In September 2008, the motor home in which the respondent had been living sustained damage from an electrical fire rendering it uninhabitable. Following the fire, he moved into his barn, which he described as "adequate for emergency living quarters." The barn is a two-story structure with a workshop on the lower level and the respondent's office on the upper level. The barn has insulation, sheetrock, carpet, electricity, plumbing, two heating systems, and central air conditioning. The second floor also has restaurant kitchen equipment, a sink, a bed, a futon, a game table, and massage and fitness equipment. In March 2009, the Town sent the respondent a notice of zoning violation/cease and desist order. The respondent replied that although he had not yet completed the repairs to his fire-damaged RV, he would "move the unfinished home from the barn to appease the town." He asserted that he had moved out of the barn by April 1, 2009. The Town asserted that it sent a second letter to the respondent in May 2009, "reiterating the violations and notifying [him] that court action would be taken if he failed to come into compliance." It commenced that action in July for preliminary and permanent injunctions, civil penalties, and attorney's fees. The respondent brought a number of counterclaims alleging, among other things, bad faith by the Town's code enforcement officer and police chief. The Town moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Town's motion. On appeal, the respondent argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the code violation issues because "[m]aterial issues of fact existed regarding [his] use of his property and barn." He also argued that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the Town. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Town of Barrington v. Townsend" on Justia Law

Petitioners J.K.S. Realty, LLC and L.J.J. Realty, LLC, appealed a superior court ruling that Respondent City of Nashua did not take their property by inverse condemnation. Petitioners are two trusts that owned as tenants-in-common a 26.8 acre parcel of land that was originally purchased in 1980 for development purposes. The northern section of the property was in the area of a planned "Board Street Parkway." In 1983, Petitioners successfully petitioned to have the property rezoned to prepare the property for sale to a developer. Since 1998, they made numerous unsuccessful attempts to sell the property or any portion thereof. The last purchase and sale agreement was entered into in 2002, for sale of the entire property with a closing in April 2004. At some point, the buyer learned that the City was unsure whether it would take the property for the parkway and asked the petitioners for an extension until he learned what the City intended to do. The petitioners decided to keep the property until it was resolved whether the City was going to take the property and, as a result, the sale did not go through. Since 2004, the petitioners have not marketed the property. However, they have harvested timber on the property for a profit and there was testimony that, unless prohibited by zoning regulations, the petitioners "would have been able to undertake" building "single-family residences, . . . conservation subdivisions, modular homes, manufactured homes, elderly housing, commercial uses, and multi-family developments." In 2009, the petitioners filed a petition for inverse condemnation, requesting that the trial court rule that the City took the property by inverse condemnation in 2004, and sought damages, including but not limited to, the fair market value of the property on that date. They alleged that the delays and continuing uncertainty regarding the parkway deprived them of all economically viable use of their property as of April 2004, when the last purchase and sale agreement fell through. Finding that the trial court properly declined to rule that the property was taken by inverse condemnation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "J.K.S. Realty, LLC v. City of Nashua " on Justia Law

Defendant Logan Schulz appealed his convictions for being an accomplice to possession of cocaine, and an accomplice to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He argued that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search warrant for his home was unconstitutional both on its face and in its execution. In 2010, a Haverhill Police officer went to the home that Defendant shared with his mother to serve her with a notice against trespass and harassment. While lawfully inside the home, the officer saw three long guns near a staircase. Knowing that the defendant's mother was a convicted felon and prohibited from possessing firearms, the officer sought a warrant to search the home. Early in the search, they learned that the three guns near the staircase were, in fact, "BB" guns and were not unlawful for the defendant's mother to possess. The officers then continued the search and asked the defendant whether there were any additional guns in the house. The defendant informed them that he had a muzzle loader rifle and took them to his bedroom to show it to them. In the room, the officer observed a lock box large enough to contain a handgun but too small to contain a long gun, and told the defendant to open it, noting that the officers could open it by force if necessary. Both the defendant and his mother protested on the grounds that the police had no reason to believe they had a handgun. The defendant's mother then became upset and admitted that the lock box contained cocaine and money. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the police were required to discontinue their search after discovering that the guns they had believed to be firearms were, in fact, BB guns. The warrant contained no other facts upon which the police might have relied in continuing to believe that the search was justified. As a result, the officers' continued search of the defendant's home under authority of the warrant was unconstitutional. View "New Hampshire v. Schulz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kenneth Bond and Deborah Thibault, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment to the defendants, the City of Manchester and Paul Martineau in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Manchester Welfare Department (collectively, the City). In January 2010, the plaintiffs applied for general assistance from the City pursuant to RSA chapter 165. See RSA 165:1, I (2002). On February 24, 2010, the City approved $140.00 per week in rental assistance. On March 18, 2010, the City suspended this assistance for seven days because of the plaintiffs' failure to provide certain documentation, including that which related to $30 the plaintiffs used to buy gas for a vehicle. The City lifted this suspension on March 25, 2010, noting that the plaintiffs were "unable to show compliance with the $30 purchase of vehicle gas that [they] stated [they] had previously purchased through an alternate financial resource." On April 9, 2010, the City revoked an April 8 voucher and denied the plaintiffs all assistance for six months because they had misrepresented information related to their vehicle. The plaintiffs petitioned the superior court to enjoin the City from suspending their assistance. Because the Supreme Court held that RSA 165:1-b and the Guidelines pertaining to rental assistance actually conflict, the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bond v. Martineau" on Justia Law

Defendants Robert Christy, Christy & Tessier, P.A., Debra Johnson, and Kathy Tremblay, appealed a superior court decision that rescinded a professional liability policy issued by Plaintiff Great American Insurance Company (GAIC), to the law firm of Christy & Tessier, P.A. Robert Christy (Christy) and Thomas Tessier (Tessier) were partners in the firm, practicing together for over forty-five years. In 1987, Frederick Jakobiec, M.D. (Jakobiec) retained Tessier to draft a will for him. In 2001, Jakobiec's mother, Beatrice Jakobiec (Beatrice), died intestate. Her two heirs were Jakobiec and his brother, Thaddeus Jakobiec (Thaddeus). Jakobiec asked Tessier, who was Beatrice's nephew, to handle the probate administration for his mother's estate. From 2002 through 2005, Tessier created false affidavits and powers of attorney, which he used to gain unauthorized access to estate accounts and assets belonging to Jakobiec and Thaddeus. Litigation ensued; two months after Tessier and Jakobiec entered into the settlement agreement, Christy executed a renewal application for professional liability coverage on behalf of the law firm. Question 6(a) on the renewal application asked: "After inquiry, is any lawyer aware of any claim, incident, act, error or omission in the last year that could result in a professional liability claim against any attorney of the Firm or a predecessor firm?" Christy's answer on behalf of the firm was "No." The trial court found that Christy's negative answer to the question in the renewal application was false "since Tessier at least knew of Dr. Jakobiec's claim against him in 2006." On appeal, the defendants argued that rescission was improper because: (1) Christy's answer to question 6(a) on the renewal application was objectively true; (2) rescission of the policy or denial of coverage would be substantially unfair to Christy and the other innocent insureds who neither knew nor could have known of Tessier's fraud; and (3) the alleged misrepresentation was made on a renewal application as opposed to an initial policy application. GAIC argued that rescission as to all insureds is the sole appropriate remedy given the material misrepresentations in the law firm's renewal application. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that Tessier's knowledge is imputed to Christy and the other defendants thereby voiding the policy ab initio. The Court made no ruling, however, as to whether any of the defendants' conduct would result in non-coverage under the policy and remanded for further proceedings. View "Great American Insurance Company v. Christy" on Justia Law

Defendant Jonathan Ball appealed his conviction following a bench trial on stipulated facts one felony count of possessing child sexual abuse images (child pornography). On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from the search of his home computer. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Ball" on Justia Law