Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Marc Mallard appealed a superior court order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus on grounds that it was procedurally defaulted and, even if it were not, that Mallard failed to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance. Mallard was charged with committing acts of domestic violence in 2012 against a romantic partner. Mallard was convicted by jury of second degree assault, attempted second degree assault, simple assault and criminal threatening. When his petition for a new trial was denied, Mallard petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that by describing him as a “big, menacing black guy” during cross-examination of the victim, trial counsel deprived him of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that because Mallard had “already fully litigated” a motion for a new trial based on the ineffectiveness of trial counsel — albeit on different grounds — his habeas petition was procedurally barred. To the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Mallard argued the trial court erred: (1) in finding his habeas petition was procedurally barred; and (2) in finding that he failed to establish “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” The Supreme Court disagreed Mallard's petition was procedurally barred. Trial counsel’s improper appeal to racial bias in Mallard’s criminal case “effectively invited the jury to make a decision based on a characterization of the defendant and not on the evidence of his guilt or innocence.” Accordingly, the Court concluded Mallard established a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of his trial, thereby satisfying that his trial counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the case. Judgment was revered and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Mallard v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Laguerre appealed a superior court order denying his motion to amend bail. The court ruled that RSA 597:2, III(a) (Supp. 2022) did not authorize it to consider whether the conditions of confinement endangered defendant’s safety when deciding whether to order preventive detention. Defendant argued that RSA 597:2, III(a) permitted courts to consider the safety of a defendant, including factors pertaining to his or her health and safety while confined, when determining bail. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the trial court correctly interpreted RSA 597:2, III(a) as applied in this case and held that it did not authorize a court to consider the safety of a defendant while detained when deciding whether to grant bail. View "New Hampshire v. Laguerre" on Justia Law

The State of New Hampshire petitioned for original jurisdiction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court to challenge a circuit court order that granted respondent’s motion to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition. The trial court ruled that the State failed to comply with RSA 169-B:6, IV(b) (2022) because no “manifestation review” had occurred prior to the filing of the delinquency petition. The Supreme Count found the term “manifestation review,” in the context of a juvenile delinquency petition resulting from conduct in a school setting by a student with a disability, referred to a process whereby a school, the student’s parents, and other parties review the student’s individualized education plan (IEP) and other relevant information to determine whether the alleged misconduct stemmed from the student’s disability or the school’s failure to implement the student’s IEP. The Court affirmed and held that whenever a delinquency petition is to be filed pursuant to RSA 169-B:6, IV(b) and the legally liable school district has determined that the child is a child with a disability according to RSA 186-C:2, I, then a manifestation review must be performed prior to the filing of the delinquency petition. "Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction of RSA 169-B:6, IV, it is free, within constitutional limits, to amend the statute accordingly." View "Petition of State of New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Cassandra Caron, Brandon Deane, Alison Petrowski, and Aaron Shelton, appealed a superior court order denying their request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief and dismissing their complaint. Plaintiffs sought, pursuant to RSA 282-A:127 (2010), to require defendants, the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security (NHES) and its Commissioner, to reinstate Pandemic Unemployment Assistance available under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. On appeal, they argued the court erred when it construed RSA 282-A:127 as imposing no obligation on defendants to secure Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for New Hampshire citizens and, therefore, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation of RSA 282-A:127, the judgment was affirm. View "Caron et al. v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff TransFarmations, Inc. appealed a superior court decision to uphold the Town of Amherst Planning Board's (Town) decisions to deny TransFarmations' two successive applications for a conditional use permit (CUP). In May 2019, TransFarmations requested a “Conceptual Meeting” with the Town’s planning board (Board) concerning its proposed development of an approximately 130-acre property known as the Jacobson Farm. It stated that the “development will be designed to meet many of the desired attributes the Town . . . has articulated in [its] Master Plan and [Integrated] Innovative . . . Housing Ordinance (IIHO),” including workforce housing and over-55 housing. TransFarmations subsequently submitted a CUP application under the IIHO for a planned residential development containing 64 residential units. In its challenge to the decisions, TransFarmations argued both that the decisions failed to adequately state the ground for denial and that the Board acted unreasonably because the second CUP application was materially different from the first. The trial court concluded that the Board adequately provided the reason for its first decision on the record because “the Board members discussed, in detail, their reasons for concluding that no material differences [between the first and second applications] existed.” The court also concluded that “the Board acted reasonably and lawfully in reaching [that] decision.” Accordingly, the court affirmed both of the Board’s decisions. TransFarmations contended the trial court erred in affirming the Board’s decision not to accept the second application because TransFarmations submitted that application “at the Board’s invitation and with the information the Board requested.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded TransFarmations’ second application supplying the requested information was “materially different from its predecessor, thus satisfying Fisher.” Because the trial court’s decision concluding otherwise misapplied Fisher v. Dover, it was legally erroneous. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s order as to the second CUP decision and remanded. View "TransFarmations, Inc. v. Town of Amherst" on Justia Law

Jeremy Fiske appealed a superior court decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner “specifically requested that the [sentencing c]ourt allow him to earn good time credit to reduce his stand-committed sentences if he completed approved programming at the prison.” After hearing argument, the sentencing court denied the request “in light of the egregious nature of [the petitioner’s] crimes.” Approximately five years later, petitioner filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus at issue here, asserting that the sentencing court “exceeded its statutory authority” and “violated his right to due process” by denying the option of earned-time credit. The trial court hearing the petition concluded that whether to grant the opportunity to obtain earned-time credit was within the discretion of the sentencing court and that the court’s decision on that matter was “not arbitrary or capricious.” On appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, petitioner reasserted that the sentencing court exceeded its statutory authority by denying his request during sentencing to grant the option to receive earned-time credit. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Fiske v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison" on Justia Law

Petitioner Louis Lafasciano petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court for review of a decision of respondent, New Hampshire Retirement System Board of Trustees (Board), that rescinded a previously-granted termination of the survivorship benefit of his former spouse, intervenor Margaret Murray, in his state pension. At the time he retired, petitioner named intervenor, then his spouse, as his survivor beneficiary, thereby reducing the amount of the retirement benefit he received during his lifetime. Under the law then in effect, a retired member who designated his or her spouse as survivor beneficiary could terminate that designation during the spouse’s lifetime only if the parties divorced and the spouse remarried. Petitioner and intervenor divorced in 2014. In 2016, the New Hampshire legislature amended RSA 100-A:13 to provide an additional circumstance under which a retired member could terminate a previously-elected spousal survivorship benefit. In November 2016, petitioner requested that intervenor be removed as his primary death beneficiary, stating that the two had been “divorced for two years now, and since the change in state legislation this past August [he] believe[d] that [his] request [could] now be honored.” In July 2020, NHRS informed the petitioner that his 2016 request for termination of his survivor benefit option had been processed in error. It further informed him that NHRS would be “rescinding that termination and reinstituting the 100% joint and survivor option you originally selected for your former spouse” and would be “instituting recoupment proceedings to recover the cumulative pop-up amount that has been paid to you since December 2016.” Petitioner appealed the Board's decision. The Supreme Court found that petitioner did not have a unilateral right to revoke his election of a spousal survivorship benefit. "[A]bsent his former spouse’s remarriage, he may terminate such an election only if his divorce decree 'provides that the former spouse shall renounce any claim to a retirement allowance under RSA 100-A.'" Because the divorce decree here did not require intervenor to renounce her claim to a survivorship benefit, petitioner could not terminate the benefit under the statute. Judgment was thus affirmed. View "Petition of Louis Lafasciano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Keene Auto Body, Inc. appealed a circuit court order that dismissed its complaint against defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Keene Auto Body, acting as an assignee of Caleb Meagher, who insured his vehicle through State Farm, sued State Farm for breach of contract for failing to cover the full cost of repairs to the insured’s vehicle. State Farm moved to dismiss the suit on grounds that, because of an anti-assignment clause in the insured’s policy, the insured’s assignment of his breach of contract claim to Keene Auto Body was not valid, and that, even if it was, Keene Auto Body did not sufficiently state a claim for breach of contract. The trial court granted the motion. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found the anti-assignment clause at issue here was ambiguous, and construed it against the insurer. Therefore, the clause did not prohibit the insured from assigning his post-loss claim to Keene Auto Body. Given this holding, the Supreme Court determined Keene Auto Body's factual allegations were sufficient to survive State Farm's motion to dismiss. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Keene Auto Body, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Defendant Ernesto Rivera was convicted by jury on one count of possession of cocaine, one count of criminal threatening, and five misdemeanor counts of domestic-violence-related simple assault. He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial motion to sever the drug charge from the other charges. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Donovan appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), based upon the court’s finding that no public policy considerations supported plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim. From December 2016 until her resignation in November 2018, she served as Associate Dean of Faculty for Mathematics. In this role, her primary focus was oversight of faculty assignments and support for mathematics courses. In March 2018, faculty reviewed a mathematics course, MAT 136, due to concerns about the course’s design. That review revealed that instructors applied different grading schemes for the course, and that those differences were not being communicated to students. Specifically, some sections of MAT 136 employed a grading scheme that SNHU intended to phase out beginning in September 2018. In July 2018, plaintiff's supervisor emailed plaintiff identifying two students from a semester of MAT 136 who received failing grades, but, given the supervisor's assessment of certain irregularities in grading schemes, “had a case for passing.” Plaintiff refused to modify the students' grades, feeling the changes requests violated the school's grading policy and were unethical. In her claim for wrongful termination, plaintiff alleged she was admonished for declining to alter the grades, and subsequently retaliated against by the creation of a hostile work environment. On appeal of the summary judgment motion, plaintiff argued that the question as to whether public policy concerns supported her wrongful termination claim, which alleged that she was constructively discharged as a result of her refusal to alter the students' grades, should have been resolved by a jury and not the trial court, as a matter of law. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that the court did not err because complaints about the application of internal grading decisions by a private university do not implicate public policy considerations necessary to support a wrongful termination claim. View "Donovan v. Southern New Hampshire University" on Justia Law