Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a jury trial, Defendant Walter Hutchinson, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of his former girlfriend Kimberly Ernest. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence on âcausationâ of Ernestâs death. On October 8, 1991, a jury found Defendant guilty of attempted murder for beating and strangling Ernest. In the attack, she sustained severe brain damage. Ernestâs family chose to treat her only with comfort measures. She died from her injuries. The State brought murder charges against the defendant. Defendant sought to have the charges against him thrown out, and appealed the trial courtâs denial of his motion to dismiss. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove he caused Ernestâs death. He did not contest that his actions caused her permanent brain injury; rather, Defendant argues that the risks to Ernestâs health as a result of his actions did not establish the necessary element of legal causation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the juryâs finding that Defendantâs conduct caused Ernestâs death beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to deny Defendant his motion to dismiss.

On June 7, 2006, Insured Kelly left his car for service at a repair shop owned and operated by his parents. The shop loaned Kelly a car while his was being serviced. The next day, Kelly was involved in a collision with Martin Morasse. Subsequently Morasse and his wife brought suit against Kelly, alleging among other things, negligence. At the time of the accident, Kelly had a personal automobile insurance policy with Progressive Northern Insurance Company with liability limits of $100,000 per person. The shop had a garage insurance policy issued by Argonaut Insurance Company with limits of $25,000 and $750,000, depending on the circumstances. Argonaut investigated the accident and concluded Kellyâs use of the loaned car was personal, and he was not a scheduled driver on their policy. It concluded it would only provide a defense to Kelly under the $25,000 limit set forth in its âAdditional Garage Limitationsâ endorsement. Argonaut identified Progressive as the primary insurer and contended that Progressive was obligated to defend and indemnify Kelly in the Morasse lawsuit. Progressive sued Argonaut asserting that Argonaut must defend and indemnify Kelly under its $750,000 policy limit. Both insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court concluded Argonaut was obligated to provide liability coverage under its policy up to $750,000. The court also ruled that Progressive must pay its pro rata share of defense costs. Argonaut appealed. The Supreme Court noted that â[a]s we have never addressed the precise issue of allocation of defense costs between a primary insurer and excess insurer, and the trial court relied upon authority from other jurisdictions to support its ruling, we cannot say that the law in this area is settled.â Accordingly, the Court declined to find error in the trial courtâs decision, and affirmed its summary judgment on behalf of Progressive.

Petitioner 1808 Corporation appeals the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) which denied it expanded use of its building under a âspecial exception.â Petitioner owns a lot in New Ipswich on which there are two structures: a one-story building and a two-story building of office and storage space. In 1998, Petitioner requested a special exception to the Townâs zoning ordinance to allow an office building in an area zoned as âVillage District II.â At a May, 1998 meeting, the ZBA granted the special exception. In January, 2008, Petitioner applied to the ZBA for a site plan review. Petitioner wanted to use the two-story building under the special exception as all-office space, testifying that the storage area was no longer needed. At a May, 2009 hearing, the ZBA voted to defer a ruling on Petitionerâs site plan for âno more than 180 daysâ while Petitioner sought ZBA approvals. Petitioner appealed this decision, challenging the need for another ZBA approval. After a public hearing, the ZBA denied Petitionerâs request. Petitioner appealed the ZBAâs denial to the trial court; the trial court upheld the ZBAâs decision. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argues that it did not need additional ZBA approvals since its storage space was within the scope of the 1998 special exception. The Court found that the record submitted for its review supported the ZBAâs determination. The Court affirmed the trial courtâs decision and upheld the determinations of the ZBA requiring Petitioner to seek additional approvals before proceeding with its plan to expand its office space.