Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Erin Warren, was charged with first-degree assault for failing to seek medical attention for her daughter A.D.'s head wound, and second-degree assault for binding A.D.'s arms. A.D. was admitted to the hospital with a severe, infected head wound and other injuries. The hospital staff reported the case to the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and the Rochester Police Department. A.D. was placed in foster care, where she disclosed further abuse by the defendant.The Superior Court allowed A.D. to testify via one-way video feed outside the defendant's presence, citing potential trauma to A.D. The jury convicted the defendant on both charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that her confrontation rights were violated, among other issues.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that allowing A.D. to testify outside the defendant's presence violated the defendant's right to meet witnesses "face to face" under the New Hampshire Constitution. The court reversed the second-degree assault conviction, finding that A.D.'s testimony was crucial to that charge and its exclusion was not harmless. However, it affirmed the first-degree assault conviction, concluding that other overwhelming evidence supported the verdict.The court also addressed the admissibility of uncharged conduct evidence, finding no error in the trial court's decision to admit it to rebut the defense's suggestibility argument and explain A.D.'s delayed disclosure. The court upheld the trial court's determination of A.D.'s competency to testify and found no error in the in camera review of DCYF and Community Partners records. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault with a firearm following a jury trial. The incident occurred when the defendant returned to his apartment building and was confronted by R.S. about an unpaid debt. An altercation ensued, during which R.S. pushed the defendant, who then stumbled down the stairs and subsequently shot R.S. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, which argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The jury found the defendant guilty, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The court noted that the jury could have found that the push by R.S. was not sufficient to create a reasonable belief that R.S. would cause serious bodily injury. Additionally, the court highlighted that the defendant and R.S. were 30 feet apart at the time of the shooting, and R.S. was unarmed. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the State had disproved the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Perez" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Maria Cristina Jarero Penichet (mother), appealed orders from the Circuit Court granting the motion of the respondent, Kenneth Corroon (father), to deny registration of a foreign child support order from Mexico under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Circuit Court concluded that the Mexico court did not have personal jurisdiction over the father and denied the mother’s request to reopen the record.The mother and father, who are unmarried, have one minor child born in New York in 2016. They executed a Stipulation of Paternity, Custody, and Access in New York, granting the mother sole custody and the right to relocate with the child, which she did, moving to Mexico in September 2016. The father, who lives in New Hampshire, began providing monthly child support. In 2022, the mother filed a petition in Mexico City for child support, resulting in a temporary support order. She then sought to register this order in New Hampshire, which the father contested, arguing that Mexico lacked personal jurisdiction over him.The Circuit Court found that the father did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Mexico to justify its exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court issued temporary orders to protect the child’s interests and denied the mother’s motion for reconsideration and to reopen the record, concluding that the additional facts presented did not establish jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. The court held that the father did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of Mexico’s laws, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also found no error in the Circuit Court’s refusal to reopen the record, as the mother did not provide reasons why the new information could not have been presented earlier. View "In the Matter of Penichet and Corroon" on Justia Law

The defendant, Roger Roy, was charged with offenses against an intimate partner between July 14 and July 16, 2019. After a jury trial, he was found guilty of one count of felony domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence - simple assault. The defendant appealed, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 2021. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdicts, arguing that the State knowingly used false evidence, specifically the victim's testimony about the year of text messages exchanged between them.The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that although the victim's testimony was false, the defendant did not establish that the State knowingly used perjured testimony. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the State's failure to correct the false testimony affected the jury's judgment.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the victim's false testimony was material to the defendant's convictions. The court determined that the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment, as it undermined the victim's credibility. The court also concluded that the State should have known the testimony was false, given its awareness of the defendant's pretrial detention in 2018.The court held that the State's failure to correct the false testimony was not harmless error and reversed the denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdicts. The case was remanded for a new trial on the count of domestic violence - criminal threatening with a deadly weapon and the four counts of domestic violence - simple assault. View "State v. Roy" on Justia Law

Gilbert Menke died on July 13, 2016, following a work-related injury. He was survived by his common law spouse, Maia Beh, and their daughter. Beh received a letter from the decedent’s employer’s insurer, informing her that she and her daughter might be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Beh provided the necessary documentation and requested benefits for her daughter, which were authorized by the New Hampshire Department of Labor (DOL). In October 2020, Beh requested to be added to the list of dependents for death benefits allocation, which the insurer denied, arguing that her request was outside the statute of limitations.The DOL ruled that Beh’s request was not a new and separate claim and was not barred by the statute of limitations. The insurer appealed to the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB), which held a de novo hearing and concluded that Beh’s request was a separate claim barred by the statute of limitations. Beh’s motion for rehearing was denied, leading to this appeal.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that adding a dependent to an open death benefits claim does not constitute a separate claim. The court held that the New Hampshire Workers’ Compensation Law does not set a time limit for a dependent to request allocation of benefits under an open death benefits claim. The court reversed the CAB’s decision, ruling that as long as a timely claim for death benefits is filed by any dependent, subsequent requests for allocation by other dependents are not barred by the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Appeal of Estate of Menke" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jalen Miller, was convicted by a jury in Superior Court on multiple charges, including second-degree assault-domestic violence, simple assault-domestic violence, criminal mischief, obstructing the report of a crime or injury, and false imprisonment. The charges stemmed from an incident where Miller and the victim, his wife, had an altercation that escalated into physical violence. Miller was accused of throwing the victim down stairs, choking her, hitting her, and damaging her cell phone to prevent her from calling the police.The trial court denied Miller's requests for a jury instruction on mutual consent for one of the simple assault charges and for dismissal of the false imprisonment charge. The court also denied his motion to dismiss the simple assault charge related to pinning the victim on the bed. Miller was sentenced to three to six years for second-degree assault-domestic violence and received suspended sentences for the other charges.On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed several issues. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on mutual consent, as the evidence did not support such a defense. The court also upheld the jury instruction on obstructing the report of a crime, finding it adequately covered the necessary elements. Additionally, the court determined that the common law merger doctrine did not apply to the criminal mischief and obstructing the report of a crime convictions, as they required different evidence.However, the court concluded that the false imprisonment conviction should have merged with the simple assault-domestic violence conviction, as the confinement was incidental to the assault. Consequently, the court reversed the false imprisonment conviction but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

Port City Air Leasing, Inc. (Port City) leases land and buildings at Pease International Tradeport for aircraft-related services. Pease Aviation Partners LLC, doing business as Million Air Portsmouth (Million Air), proposed to lease adjacent land to build a similar facility and applied for a permit to dredge and fill wetlands to construct an access road. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) issued the permit in June 2022. Port City filed an administrative appeal with the New Hampshire Wetlands Council (Council), arguing that the permit issuance was unlawful and unreasonable. Million Air intervened and moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming Port City lacked standing.The Hearing Officer ruled that Port City lacked standing because it was not a "person aggrieved" under RSA 482-A:10, I, which includes the applicant and those entitled to notice by mail under RSA 482-A:8 and RSA 482-A:9. The Hearing Officer determined that Port City was not an "abutting landowner" entitled to notice. Port City's motion for reconsideration and rehearing was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the Council's decision. The court held that Port City is not a "landowner" under RSA 482-A:9 because its lease does not grant interests equivalent to fee ownership. Consequently, Port City is not a "person aggrieved" with standing to appeal under RSA 482-A:10, I. The court also rejected Port City's due process claims, concluding that the absence of an administrative remedy does not violate its state or federal due process rights, as Port City still has potential legal remedies for any injuries. The court affirmed the dismissal of Port City's appeal. View "Appeal of Port City Air Leasing, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves the father of J.M. (Father) appealing an order from the Circuit Court denying his motion to dismiss a neglect petition due to defective service of process. The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed the petition after J.M.'s mother passed away, leaving J.M. without a caretaker. Father, who was living in Florida and had not seen J.M. for over a year, was served with the petition by a process server. He argued that service was defective because it was not performed by a law enforcement officer as required by RSA 169-C:8, I.The Circuit Court denied Father's motion to dismiss, and the adjudicatory hearing proceeded, resulting in a finding of neglect and an order for J.M.'s out-of-home placement. Father did not immediately appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss and participated in the hearing, leading to the waiver of his service of process challenge under Mosier v. Kinley.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and agreed with DCYF that Father waived his challenge by not appealing immediately. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's neglect finding, noting that Father had not seen J.M. for 18 months and had not provided any support for two years despite being financially able.The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the neglect finding was supported by evidence and that the trial court did not err in continuing J.M.'s out-of-home placement instead of placing J.M. in Father's custody under DCYF supervision. The Supreme Court clarified that appeals from a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are discretionary and must be filed within 30 days. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The respondent, Justin Nadeau (husband), appealed the final decree of divorce from the petitioner, Michelle Nadeau (wife), issued by the Circuit Court. The husband argued that the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate and denying his request for alimony. Additionally, the husband and his parents, James and Gail Nadeau, contended that the trial court erred in adding the parents to the action for discovery purposes only.The Circuit Court found that the parties had a wedding ceremony in June 2009, but the officiant's license had lapsed, leading to a second civil ceremony in July 2009. Before the June ceremony, the parties signed a prenuptial agreement. The husband owned properties in Rye and Portsmouth, which were transferred to a trust managed by his father before the second ceremony. The wife discovered these transfers in 2012 during an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office. The Rye property was sold in 2013 or 2014, and the State Street property was sold during the divorce proceedings. The wife filed for divorce in May 2020, and the trial court joined the husband’s parents for discovery purposes due to the husband's non-compliance with discovery orders.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the trial court did not err in treating the State Street and Rye properties as part of the marital estate, as the transfers were likely fraudulent and diminished the marital estate's value. The court also found that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion in awarding the wife the proceeds from her personal injury settlement. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court's decision to join the husband’s parents for discovery purposes did not affect the outcome of the case, as the adverse inferences were drawn from the husband's own actions. View "In the Matter of Nadeau & Nadeau" on Justia Law

The case involves five severely developmentally disabled men who require intensive care in a residential treatment setting and receive services through New Hampshire’s developmental services system. These services were provided by the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. (JRC) in Massachusetts, funded by federal Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver funding. In 2022, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) informed the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that JRC was not an approved HCBS provider, and funding for services at JRC would cease. DHHS committed to funding the services with state funds temporarily, but this was not extended beyond September 2, 2022.The petitioners appealed to the DHHS Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU), arguing that the termination of funding without an alternative placement amounted to a termination of their services. The Commissioner initially ordered DHHS to continue funding during the appeals. However, in March 2023, the Commissioner granted summary judgment to DHHS, ruling that the services were not terminated but required to be provided in a qualified facility. The Commissioner also ruled that RSA chapter 171-A prohibits DHHS from using state funds for services that do not comply with the federal Settings Rule.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and concluded that the petitioners had a right to appeal the termination and non-renewal of their service contracts with JRC. However, the court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that RSA chapter 171-A prohibits DHHS from using state funds for services provided by a provider that does not comply with the federal Settings Rule. Thus, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of DHHS. View "Petition of Mason" on Justia Law