Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Juvenile D.J. appealed a circuit court's finding of delinquency based on a petition alleging that he committed harassment under RSA 644:4, I(b) (Supp. 2021). The victim told the juveniles that they were not supposed to be riding bicycles on the sidewalk. D.J. told the victim to go “f**k himself.” D.J. continued to yell at the victim, who testified that D.J. was “swearing, saying f**k this and f**k that and you’re nothing but an old man.” The victim yelled back at D.J. and asserted that he could do martial arts. D.J. got off his bicycle, provoked the victim to fight, and took off his shirt. The owner of a store across the street from this encounter observed the confrontation and, after it had gone on for approximately five minutes, she began to record it using her cellphone. The store owner also called the police. The incident lasted approximately eight minutes, until a patrol officer arrived at the scene. D.J. argued there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding, and that RSA 644:4, I(b) was unconstitutional as applied and on its face. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re D.J." on Justia Law

Defendant Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a superior court grant of summary judgment to plaintiff CC 145 Main, LLC, in a declaratory judgment action regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy exclusion. CC 145 Main owned an apartment building and purchased a “Businessowners Coverage” insurance policy that included “all risk” property insurance, which provided that Union Mutual would “pay for direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property, unless coverage was specifically limited or excluded by the policy. The insured property sustained damage when a tenant poured cat litter down a toilet, clogging an interior pipe and causing water to overflow from a shower and toilet. The property required significant cleaning and repair, and tenants were required to temporarily relocate. CC 145 Main filed a claim with Union Mutual for water damage, which Union Mutual denied pursuant to a provision in the insurance policy excluding coverage for damage caused by “[w]ater that backs up or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer, drain, sump, sump pump or related equipment.” CC 145 Main filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the water exclusion does not apply to its claim. Union Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the damage at issue was caused by water that overflowed from “drains” within the meaning of the exclusion. The trial court concluded it was unclear whether the word “drain” in the water exclusion applied to shower and toilet drains and, therefore, the water exclusion was ambiguous and had to be construed in favor of CC 145 Main. Defendant challenged the trial court’s ruling that the policy’s water damage exclusion was ambiguous and its decision to construe the policy, therefore, in favor of CC 145 Main. But finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "CC 145 Main, LLC v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Jordan appealed a superior court order denying his motion for earned time credits. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred when it declined to approve the recommendations made by the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections that the defendant receive several 60-day reductions of his minimum and maximum sentences. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that courts have broad discretion to consider all relevant factors in their decision to grant, or decline to grant, approval for earned time credit, and that the court was free to consider either the crime for which the defendant was convicted or the degree of harm suffered by the victims when it exercises this discretion. Finding no abuse of such discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order. View "New Hampshire v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire (CASA) appealed a circuit court order denying DCYF’s petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights over E.R. and H.R. The mother had five children; E.R. and H.R. were the youngest. The fathers of E.R. and H.R. were unknown. In November 2019, the circuit court found the mother neglected four of her children, including E.R. and H.R. The circuit court held a nine-month review hearing in October 2020 and found the mother to be in partial compliance with a case plan filed at the beginning of DCYF's involvement. The court ultimately transferred legal custody to DCYF, and E.R. and H.R. were removed from the mother’s care. In October 2021, the circuit court held a permanency hearing. Both DCYF and CASA recommended adoption as the permanency plan and termination of the mother’s parental rights over E.R. and H.R. In denying the termination, the trial court concluded that while it is in the children’s best interest to remain out of their mother’s care, it is not in their best interest that her parental rights be terminated. DCYF and CASA moved for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied. Finding no abuse of discretion, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "In re E.R.; In re H.R." on Justia Law

Defendant N.B. appealed a final civil stalking protective order entered for the protection of plaintiff S.D. Plaintiff and Defendant knew each other since high school, but never had a personal relationship. Sometime after high school, Defendant developed a fixation with Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that Defendant began to contact her via the internet sometime in 2017. Defendant agreed that he had made postings regarding Plaintiff, but testified that they began in 2019. The postings about Plaintiff included sexual suggestions and threats. The trial court held a final hearing on the stalking petition on February 8, 2022, and found that Defendant had stalked Plaintiff. Defendant argued that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he stalked Plaintiff; and (2) the court’s protective order violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "S.D. v. N.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Police Commission/Police Department (the City) appealed a superior court's denial of the City’s request to modify, correct, or vacate an arbitrator’s award of backpay to Aaron Goodwin, a police officer who was previously employed by the City and who was a member of defendant Portsmouth Ranking Officers Association, NEPBA, Local 220 (the Union). The arbitration arose from a grievance filed by the Union challenging Goodwin’s termination. The arbitrator found that the City wrongfully terminated Goodwin and awarded him approximately twenty-six months of backpay. The superior court confirmed the arbitrator’s termination decision and backpay award. On appeal, the City argued the arbitrator committed plain mistake because she failed to correctly apply the after-acquired-evidence doctrine in determining the amount of the backpay award. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the City that the arbitrator committed a plain mistake of law in reaching the backpay award, it reversed in part, vacated the superior court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, and remanded. View "City of Portsmouth Police Commission/Department v. Portsmouth Ranking Officers Association, NEPBA, Local 220" on Justia Law

Defendant Ian Boudreau was convicted by jury on fourteen counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA). He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) improperly responding to a jury question during its deliberation concerning the State’s burden of proof; and (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence in its case-in-chief of the defendant’s pre-arrest refusal to speak to the police. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded: (1) the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in responding to the jury question; and (2) though the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence in the State’s case-in-chief, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Boudreau" on Justia Law

Petitioner M.P. sought review of a Department of Health and Human Services Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) decision finding him ineligible to receive developmental disability (DD) services pursuant to RSA chapter 171-A (2022). Petitioner argued that: (1) the AAU’s determination that he did not have a qualifying DD pursuant to RSA 171-A:2, V was an unsustainable exercise of discretion; (2) the AAU erred in admitting certain testimony and considering the petitioner’s Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) status; and (3) the AAU’s failure to timely hold a hearing and issue a decision violated the Medicaid Act and his due process rights under the Federal and New Hampshire Constitutions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that the AAU’s eligibility decision was sustainable and that the contested testimony was immaterial and did not prejudice petitioner. Additionally, despite the significant delay that petitioner experienced waiting for a hearing and a final decision, the delay was largely attributable to the global pandemic and the protective measures imposed in an effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Pursuant to the federal authority relied upon by petitioner, these circumstances constituted an “emergency” beyond the AAU’s control, thereby exempting the AAU from the statute’s scheduling requirement. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Petition of M.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dan Hynes appealed two superior court orders granting in part the motion to dismiss filed by defendants the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP) and Raymond Buckley, and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was a New Hampshire attorney. In 2009, plaintiff was convicted of theft by extortion, which was later annulled. As a result of the conviction, plaintiff was temporarily suspended from the practice of law, but not disbarred. In 2018, plaintiff was “the Republican nominee for New Hampshire State Senate District 9.” During the course of plaintiff’s campaign, defendants “contracted with Bridge Communications to prepare mail pieces for certain state senate candidates,” including plaintiff’s opponent for the state senate seat. With the aid of an NHDP staffer, Bridge prepared a political message that was distributed by mail which mentioned plaintiff's extortion conviction, but also held that he was disbarred. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants based on the content of the mailer, claiming that the statements there constituted: (1) defamation per se; (2) defamation per quod; (3) libel; (4) invasion of privacy — false light; and (5) violation of RSA 651:5 (2016). Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting, inter alia, that the statements were “true or substantially true” and were not made “with knowledge of [their] falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth.” Defendants further argued that RSA 651:5 did not create a private right of action and that plaintiff failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the defamation and libel claims as they related to the statement that plaintiff had been convicted of theft by extortion, and dismissed counts four and five, determining that plaintiff failed to state a claim for false light, and that RSA 651:5 did not create a civil cause of action. It did not, however, dismiss the defamation and libel claims as they related to the statement over plaintiff's disbarrment, finding that whether the statement was substantially true was a question for the jury. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. The flyer did not refer to plaintiff's annulled conviction, nor did it accurately convey he was not disbarred from the practice of law. The Court concluded the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issues resolved by summary judgment. View "Hynes v. New Hampshire Democratic Party, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Juliana and David Lonergan appealed a superior court order affirming a Town of Sanbornton’s (Town) Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) approval of a special exception for an excavation site for property that intervenor, R.D. Edmunds Land Holdings, LLC, owned. As a threshold matter, the Town and the intervenor argued that the New Hampshire Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based upon plaintiffs’ failure to timely move for rehearing with the ZBA as required by RSA 155-E:9 (2014). To this, the Supreme Court concluded that RSA 155-E:9 applied to plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing to the ZBA and that plaintiffs did not meet the ten-day filing deadline set forth in the statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and vacated the superior court’s order. View "Lonergan v. Town of Sanbornton" on Justia Law