Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jesse Brooks appealed his conviction on conspiracy to commit murder. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce prior recorded statements of a witness and by finding that witness competent to testify. He also challenged the trial court's denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found the trial court committed no error, and affirmed the Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Brooks " on Justia Law

Petitioners Curtis and Deborah Avery appealed a superior court order that dismissed their petition for a declaratory judgment for pertaining to a lot size waiver that was granted to Respondent Concord School District (District) by Respondent New Hampshire Department of Education (DOE). In 2009, the School Board for the District voted to demolish and rebuild Kimball School. The lot size for the proposed new building did not meet the minimum lot size requirements in the state Administrative Rules. As a result, the District applied for a waiver of the lot size requirements with the DOE. Petitioners owned rental property adjacent to the school lot. In 2010, they sought a declaratory judgment that the waiver was "invalid and void." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court's ruling that Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the waiver was correct. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Petitioner's case. View "Avery & New Hampshire Dept. of Education" on Justia Law

Respondent Town of Deerfield (Town) appealed a Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) decision that certified Petitioner New England Police Benevolent Association (Association) as the exclusive bargaining representative for a police department bargaining unit. The Town objected to the Association's petition, arguing that the proposed bargaining unit did not include the statutory minimum of ten employees because three of the proposed members were not proper members. After unsuccessful appeals to the PELRB, the Town appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with Petitioner's contention that the PELRB could lawfully decide that as long as there were ten employees in a proposed unit, the ten-employee rule was satisfied. Here, the applicable statute plainly stated that the PELRB could not "add to, detract from, or modify the statute which they are intended to implement" by certifying a bargaining unit that contained fewer than ten employees. Accordingly, the Court reversed the PELRB's decision. View "Appeal of Town of Deerfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Alfred and Susan Marshall appealed a superior court's order that granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Plaintiffs' claim to a prescriptive easement over defendants' beach front property (the “Beach Lot”) Plaintiffs' and defendants' lots were originally part of a parcel acquired by Francis Lord in 1871. Lord sold several beachfront lots (but not the Beach Lot) during his lifetime. After Lord’s death, his heirs continued to sell parcels from his land, including several non-waterfront back lots. The Town of Ossipee (Town) acquired title to the Beach Lot by a tax collector’s deed in 1987. The Town conveyed the Beach Lot by quitclaim deed in 1993. In June 2010, Plaintiffs filed this action for the court's determination that they held prescriptive rights to use the Beach Lot. Plaintiffs claimed that, prior to the Town’s acquisition of the Beach Lot by tax deed in 1987, they and their predecessors had made more than twenty years of open, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted use of the Beach Lot to access Lake Ossipee, thus giving them a prescriptive easement over that lot. The defendants challenged Plaintiffs’ claim on five grounds, one being that any prescriptive easement to use the Beach Lot, which may have existed prior to 1987, was extinguished by the Town’s acquisition of the property by tax deed in that year. Without deciding whether Plaintiffs actually had an easement prior to 1987, the court held that even assuming such easement existed, the tax deed cut off even ripened prescriptive rights as a matter of law. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that that the trial court erred in determining any easement they might have had prior to the tax deed was extinguished by that deed. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs, and reversed the superior court's decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Marshall & Burke" on Justia Law

Petitioner Brandt Development Company of New Hampshire, LLC (Brandt) appealed a Superior Court order that upheld a decision of Respondent City of Somersworth’s (City) zoning board of adjustment (ZBA). The ZBA denied its application for a variance. Brandt owned a house and attached barn in the residential multi-family district of the City. In November 1994, Brandt applied for a variance from size and frontage requirements to convert the property, then being used as a duplex, into four dwelling units. The ZBA denied the application after finding that the property failed to satisfy the five criteria for a variance. From 1995 to 1997, Brandt added four bedrooms to the upstairs unit after receiving permits to do so. In December 2009, Brandt again sought to convert the property into a four-unit dwelling, and again applied to the ZBA for a variance from the City’s area, frontage, and setback requirements. The ZBA declined to consider the merits of the variance application on the basis that “circumstances [had] not changed sufficiently to warrant acceptance of the application.” The superior court affirmed the ZBA’s decision in August 2010. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the legal criteria the ZBA used in making its determination were not "discreet and unrelated criteria, but interrelated concepts that aim to ensure a proper balance between the legitimate aims of municipal planning and the hardship that may sometimes result from a literal enforcement of zoning ordinances." As such, the Court found that the ZBA's denial of Brandt's variance application was not reasonable in light of state law, and it reversed the ZBA's and Superior Court's decisions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brandt Development Company of New Hampshire, LLC v. City of Somersworth " on Justia Law

Defendant George Quintero appealed his convictions on one count of felonious sexual assault (FSA), and one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA). He argued that the Superior Court erred when it conditioned the giving of a so-called "Williams instruction" (137 N.H. 343 (1993) (requiring the State to prove the charged acts occurred in the time frame alleged in the indictments)) on his agreeing to an amendment of the indictments to conform to the evidence presented at trial. After oral argument, the Supreme Court directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing on whether "Williams" should be overruled. The Court took the arguments under advisement, and affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the Williams instruction should no longer be given in cases tried after the date of this opinion. View "New Hampshire v. Quintero " on Justia Law

Defendant John Stowe appealed his convictions of making a false report to law enforcement and of unsworn falsification, arguing that the Superior Court erred when it: (1) limited his cross-examination of a crucial State witness; (2) denied his request for a curative instruction on the State's misstatements of law made during closing argument; and (3) denied his motion to dismiss the unsworn falsification complaint. In 2005, John Deere Company was authorized to repossess a tractor that Defendant had financed through it. John Deere was unsuccessful because the tractor was not at the expected location. Defendant claimed that he did not know what happened to the tractor. During a subsequent court hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to file a police report indicating that the tractor had been stolen. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented against Defendant at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Stowe" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Burke appealed a trial court's decision to deny his motion to dismiss criminal restraint charges against him. On the morning of February 2, 2009, eighty-three-year-old Monna Greenstreet was home alone when she saw Defendant standing in the area between her kitchen and family room. He was holding a knife and demanded $75,000, which he claimed her husband had hidden in the house. Defendant was subsequently charged with burglary, robbery, theft by unauthorized taking, criminal restraint, and obstructing the report of a crime. At the close of the State's case, Defendant moved to dismiss all of the charges. With respect to the criminal restraint charge, he argued that the State had failed to prove that Greenstreet was exposed to "risk of serious bodily injury." Upon review, the Supreme Court held: "[a]lthough we consider this a close case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that [the evidence] was sufficient to establish a risk of serious bodily injury." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Burke" on Justia Law

In this personal injury case, Plaintiff Alfred Ocasio appealed a judgment entered in favor of Defendant Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). Plaintiff was a mail handler who pulled by hand, large, heavy canisters filled with mail from delivery tractor-trailer trucks. One day as he was pulling canisters from a FedEx tractor-trailer truck, he accidentally stepped into and caught his leg in a gap between the rear of the truck and the loading dock. When a canister he had been pulling continued to roll toward him, the bones of his trapped leg were shattered. He argued on appeal that the Trial Court erred when it allowed the jury to apportion fault to his employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and when, despite the jury's $1,445,700 verdict in his favor, it entered judgment for FedEx after comparing the fault allocated to him to the fault allocated to FedEx. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that "while it was not error to allow the jury to apportion fault to the USPS, it was error to deny the plaintiff any recovery against FedEx. We, thus, affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand." View "Ocasio v. Federal Express Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant Robinson Garcia was certified as an adult and convicted of one count of second-degree murder and one count of riot. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erroneously: (1) denied his motions to suppress; (2) excluded the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) prohibited him from testifying about statements made by the victim. Defendant's convictions arose out of the August 11, 2005 beating of Stephen Raymond in Manchester. After Raymond's death, Defendant was charged with second-degree murder. Defendant was also charged with three alternative theories of felony-level riot, alleging that he assembled with others with the purpose of causing Raymond to suffer serious injuries. The trial court made a number of rulings unfavorable to Defendant. Defendant appealed those rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented at trial supported his convictions, and affirmed the trial court's decisions in his case. View "New Hampshire v. Garcia" on Justia Law