Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant David Tufano was convicted by jury for misdemeanor cruelty to animals. In 2019, Richard Roberge was working in his yard at his home in Somersworth. He heard a low, loud moaning noise coming from the defendant’s home across the street and went over to investigate. He saw the defendant with a hose in his hand spraying water into a plastic container. Inside the container was a “Havahart Trap” with a cat in it. He told the defendant to take the trap out of the bucket and open the trap, which the defendant did. The cat then ran off. Roberge did not immediately report the incident to police, but did so later, after other neighbors told him he should. Specifically, after his neighbor Sharon Barry told him about a prior incident in which defendant had placed a trap on his property, Roberge decided to contact the police. At trial, defendant objected to the trial court’s admission of any of Barry’s statements made about his cat trapping. Defendant also filed a motion in limine to allow him to impeach Barry with a prior conviction. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion was an abuse of discretion. “While it was undisputed that the defendant sprayed the trapped cat inside a container, we cannot say that those facts alone ‘clearly constitute mistreatment of the cat that grossly deviates from what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.’” Because the erroneously-admitted evidence of prior cat trapping could have influenced the jury to view the defendant as a person who was “hostile toward cats” and likely to abuse or mistreat one, it could have led the jury to credit Roberge’s testimony over the defendant’s and to convict him of the charged offense. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Tufano" on Justia Law

Petitioner Pamela Smart petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to order the Governor and Executive Council to reconsider whether to grant a hearing on the substance of her Petition for Commutation. Petitioner was serving a life-without-parole sentence for a conviction as an accomplice for first-degree murder. Petitioner submitted a Petition for Commutation, which requested a hearing before the Executive Council. She asked that her sentence be modified to eliminate the “without the possibility of parole” condition, and commuted to time served. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded petitioner’s challenge to the executive branch’s discretionary exercise of its clemency power sought a ruling on a nonjusticiable question. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Petition of Smart" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Woodburn was convicted by jury on one count of domestic violence, one count of simple assault, and two counts of criminal mischief. On appeal, he challenged only the domestic violence and simple assault convictions, arguing the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense. He also argued the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the complainant’s alleged prior acts of aggression against him, arguing that the evidence was admissible under either New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) or the verbal completeness and opening-the-door doctrines. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with defendant that the court’s failure to give a self-defense instruction was error, it reversed his convictions for domestic violence and simple assault, affirmed his criminal mischief convictions, and remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Woodburn" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire certified two questions of law for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's consideration. Plaintiffs, individuals who presently or formerly lived in the Merrimack area, brought tort claims, including negligence, nuisance, trespass, and negligent failure to warn, alleging that defendants’ manufacturing process at its facility in the Town of Merrimack used chemicals that included perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). They alleged PFOA was a toxic chemical that was released into the air from the Merrimack facility and has contaminated the air, ground, and water in Merrimack and nearby towns. As a result, plaintiffs alleged the wells and other drinking water sources in those places were contaminated, exposing them to PFOA, placing them at risk of developing health problems, including testicular cancer, kidney cancer, immunotoxicity, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy induced hypertension. The first question from the federal circuit court asked whether New Hampshire recognized “a claim for the costs of medical monitoring as a remedy or as a cause of action” in plaintiffs' context. Depending on the answer to the first question, the second question asked, “what are the requirements and elements of a remedy or cause of action for medical monitoring” under New Hampshire law. Because the Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative, it did not address the second question. View "Brown, et al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Tycollo Graham appealed a superior court order dismissing his lawsuit against defendants ProCon, Inc. and Eurosim Construction, on res judicata grounds. Plaintiff argued on appeal that his suit in Merrimack County Superior Court was not barred by the Grafton County Superior Court’s prior dismissal of an identical action against the same defendants because the prior dismissal was not a final judgment on the merits. To this, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed: his suit is not barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court also adopted a prospective rule that a dismissal order resulting from a plaintiff’s violation of a court order or a procedural rule that is silent as to prejudice will be deemed to be without prejudice and, therefore, not “on the merits” for the purposes of res judicata. View "Graham v. Eurosim Construction, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant John Cullen was convicted by jury on two counts of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault and one count of sexual assault. One of the pattern indictments alleged sexual contact; the other alleged sexual penetration. Defendant appealed his convictions on the pattern indictments, arguing that the Superior Court erred when it denied his motions to dismiss the two pattern charges because the State failed to prove that “the acts relevant to each indictment occurred over a period of 2 months or more” and, with respect to the pattern sexual contact charge, that the victim was under the age of 13 when he committed those acts. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Cullen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), petitioned under the New Hampshire Supreme Court's original jurisdiction seeking review of a superior court order denying DCYF’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought against it. In 2019, Respondent filed a complaint as parent and next friend of his children, M.M. and J.M., asserting various claims against both DCYF and the Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire (CASA). DCYF and CASA moved to dismiss the complaint, with DCYF arguing, inter alia, that the claims were time-barred by RSA 541-B:14, IV. Respondent objected, asserting that RSA 508:8 (2010) tolled the period of limitations in RSA 541-B:14, IV. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court dismissed the claims against CASA as precluded by quasi-judicial immunity, but denied the motion to dismiss the claims against DCYF. In its order, the trial court reasoned that RSA 508:8 operated as a tolling provision and that failing to read the tolling provision into the statute of limitations in RSA 541-B:14, IV would lead to “an absurd, unfair, and unjust result.” In its petition to the Supreme Court, DCYF asked the Court to determine that RSA 508:8 did not apply to claims brought under RSA chapter 541-B. The Supreme Court concurred with Respondent, holding that RSA 508:8 had to be read into RSA 541-B:14, IV in order to comport with the equal protection guarantees afforded to the citizenry under Part I, Articles 2 and 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Petition of New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families" on Justia Law

Respondent-Mother appealed a circuit court order finding that her children were abused and neglected. Petitioner New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed six abuse and neglect petitions alleging Mother's biological children, J.S. and J.P.S. were born prematurely due to exposure to drugs taken during Mother's pregnancy. J.P.S. was born on October 7, 2021, at Mother and Father’s home. Approximately three days after his birth, J.P.S. began showing signs of distress. Father brought J.P.S. to Catholic Medical Center (CMC) under the so-called “safe haven law,” and stated that the child’s mother was, or was believed to be, an intravenous drug user. Because J.P.S’s needs were so extensive, he was transported to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). After three days at BCH, J.P.S. returned to CMC, where he was still being treated at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. He was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The circuit court entered findings of “true” with respect to four petitions alleging neglect of J.S. and J.P.S. by Mother and Father. The two remaining petitions alleged abuse of J.P.S. by Father and Mother, respectively, through injuries sustained by J.P.S. after birth, caused by Mother’s prenatal narcotics use. The court entered findings of “not true” with respect to Father and “true” with respect to Mother. Mother appealed, challenging the finding of abuse of J.P.S. and the findings of neglect of both J.P.S. and J.S., and raising other alleged errors. The only question briefed by Mother, however, relates to the finding of abuse of J.P.S. Accordingly, we deem all other issues raised in Mother’s notice of appeal waived. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment and affirmed. View "In re J.P.S.; In re J.S." on Justia Law

In Corso v. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 (1979), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not be in the zone of danger to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Instead, the Court announced a new rule intended to compensate plaintiffs who were not in the zone of danger but nevertheless suffered emotional distress as a result of a defendant’s negligence. In this case, the Court applied the Corso standard to allegations involving medical professionals’ negligent misdiagnosis, which resulted in the death of Lisa Chartier. Lisa’s husband, Marc Chartier, brought this action against defendants, Apple Therapy of Londonderry, LLC (Apple Therapy), Four Seasons Orthopaedic Center, PLLC d/b/a New Hampshire Orthopaedic Center (Four Seasons Orthopaedic), and Dr. Heather Killie. He appealed a superior court order granting defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to his negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The Court found plaintiff alleged he suffered severe emotional distress manifested by physical symptoms from contemporaneously perceiving the sudden, unexpected, and shocking suffering and death of his wife. Under these circumstances, Lisa’s pulmonary embolism constituted the “accident” in line with Corso, and subsequent cases. The Court held the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on the basis that Marc’s emotional distress was too attenuated from defendants’ negligent conduct to permit recovery. On remand, the trial court was instructed to apply the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress in a manner consistent with the Court’s opinion. View "Chartier v. Apple Therapy of Londonderry, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Philip Perez was convicted by jury of first-degree assault and conduct after an accident. Defendant argued appealing his convictions that the superior court erred in excluding evidence pertaining to statements that the victim made to hospital staff two days after the assault. The State argued any error relating to the trial court’s exclusion of the victim’s statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, defendant’s convictions should be affirmed. After review of the trial court record, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concurred with the State and affirmed defendant’s convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Perez" on Justia Law