Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The parties appealed and cross-appealed superior court rulings regarding claims of defendants, the direct or beneficial owners of real property on Great Island, to deeded or prescriptive easements to traverse a footpath (the Circle Trail) over the Great Island lot owned by plaintiff Dwight Stowell, Jr. Great Island was on Lake Sunapee and lay partially in Newbury and partially in Sunapee. Stowell’s lot was primarily in Newbury, although a small portion of it is in Sunapee. Some of the defendants had Great Island lots in Newbury (the Newbury defendants), while others have Great Island lots in Sunapee (the Sunapee defendants). Because Great Island had no public roads, footpaths were used to get from one place to another on the island. The Circle Trail went around the perimeter of the island. In ruling on pre-trial cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court decided that the Newbury defendants have deeded easements to use the Circle Trail as it crosses the Newbury portion of Stowell’s lot. The court rejected the assertion that those easements were extinguished because the purpose for which they were created (to provide access to steamboats) became impossible to achieve once the steamboat wharves were destroyed in a 1938 hurricane. Furthermore, the trial court ruled that: (1) only those Newbury defendants who testified at trial have prescriptive easements to use the Circle Trail over the Sunapee portion of Stowell’s lot; (2) only the single Sunapee defendant who testified at trial has a prescriptive easement to use the Circle Trail over both the Newbury and Sunapee portions of Stowell’s lot; and (3) Stowell has the unilateral right to relocate the Newbury defendants’ deeded easements from the front to the back of his property. Stowell appealed the ruling that the Newbury defendant had deeded easements to use the Circle Trail that crossed his lot; the defendants challenged the other rulings. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s rulings regarding defendants’ prescriptive easements and Stowell’s right to relocate the deeded easements, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stowell v. Andrews" on Justia Law

Plaintiff The Marist Brothers of New Hampshire (MBNH) appealed several superior court orders: (1) a decision upholding the denial by defendant Town of Effingham (Town), of MBNH’s request for a charitable tax exemption, for tax year 2015, for real property; and (2) an order granting the Town’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the tax treatment of New Hampshire youth camps other than the camp run by MBNH. When Camp Marist was not in session, MBNH rented the Property subject to this appeal: no restrictions were placed on who is eligible to rent, or how renters use, the Property. Rental proceeds were allocated to either the “regular Camp fund, the running of the Camp, or . . . to some of [MBNH’s] scholarships.” MBNH argues that the trial court erred in determining that it met none of the "ElderTrust" factors. After careful consideration, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded MBNH did satisfy all ElderTrust factors, reversing the trial court. View "The Marist Brothers of New Hampshire v. Town of Effingham" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Allain appealed a superior court order denying his request for pretrial confinement credit toward a suspended sentence imposed for violating a good behavior condition. Defendant was arrested on October 10, 2015 for a burglary that took place August 31, 2015. Unable to post bail, he remained incarcerated until trial. In February 2016, the State obtained eight indictments against him relating to burglaries and thefts that took place during the late summer of 2015, including the August 31 burglary. On July 8, 2016, the State moved to impose defendant’s 2011 suspended sentence because he violated the good behavior condition by committing the August 31 burglary. On August 15, 2016, the State entered a nolle prosequi on the charge involving the August 31, 2015 burglary. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by denying him “presentence confinement credit beginning October 10, 2015.” He contended that had he posted bail on October 10, 2015, he would serve a total of three to six years of the 2011 sentence, but “[b]ecause he is indigent and the court denied credit, he will serve three years, 332 days to six years, 332 days.” Requiring him to serve more time because of his indigency, he argues, “involves precisely the discrimination” the presentence confinement credit statutes seek to prohibit. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concurred with defendant's argument and reversed the trial court's order's denying his request for pretrial confinement credit. The case was remanded for that court to grant pretrial credit toward defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Allain" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from respondent’s, the New Hampshire Division of State Police (Division), termination of petitioner State Trooper David Appleby, based on petitioner’s abandonment of his extra-duty detail escorting an oversized truck and his conduct in the subsequent investigations of that incident. Petitioner worked an extra-duty detail in which he was assigned to escort an oversized truck from Claremont to the Massachusetts border in Plaistow. The truck’s departure was delayed due to mechanical problems, and petitioner became concerned that he would not be able to complete the escort and also arrive on time for his regularly scheduled duties at Troop F, located in northern New Hampshire. After unsuccessfully seeking substitute coverage, petitioner escorted the truck to exit 7 on Route 101. In order to arrive on time for his regular duties, petitioner abandoned the detail before the truck reached the Massachusetts border. Petitioner appealed his termination to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), which reinstated him. The Division appealed, arguing that the PAB’s decision to reinstate petitioner was unjust and unreasonable because: (1) the standard set forth in RSA 21-I:58, I (2012) did not permit the PAB to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority; and (2) the PAB failed to consider the factors provided for in the applicable personnel rule and relied upon by the Division in reaching its termination decision, including the petitioner’s prior disciplinary history. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of New Hampshire Division of State Police" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Rochester City Council appealed a superior court order affirming defendant City of Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment’s grant of a variance to defendants Donald and Bonnie Toy. On appeal, the Council argued the trial court: (1) erred in affirming the ZBA’s decision to grant a variance to the Toys; and (2) unsustainably exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motions to expand the record. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rochester City Council v. Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Circuit Court transferred to the New Hampshire Supreme Court without ruling on a question of whether RSA 564-B:1-112 (Supp. 2017) (amended 2018), which addressed rules of construction for trusts, incorporated the pretermitted heir statute, RSA 551:10 (2007), as a rule of construction applicable to trusts. The Supreme Court accepted the transfer, and answered the question in the negative. View "In re Teresa E. Craig Living Trust" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Plantamuro appealed his convictions by jury on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, one count of felonious sexual assault, and one count of felony indecent exposure and lewdness. In May 2016, defendant was convicted of sexually abusing the victim, who was born in 2007. At the time of the abuse, which occurred between 2012 and 2014, the victim and her mother lived in the same neighborhood as defendant. The victim would often go to defendant’s house to visit him and his mother. The victim testified that the assaults took place in defendant’s bedroom, which was, essentially, a porch converted into a bedroom. The victim testified that defendant showed her videos in which “[r]eal people” were “naked and . . . having sex”; she also testified that defendant told her that he was “going to do this to [her] one day.” According to the victim, defendant subsequently engaged in sexual activity with her and masturbated in front of her. She testified that this activity occurred on four occasions. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by: (1) excluding “evidence about the circumstances of” the victim’s disclosure of the assaults to her mother; and (2) prohibiting the defendant’s ex-wife from testifying that he “is sexually attracted to women, not to children.” Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Plantamuro" on Justia Law

The State and other defendants the New Hampshire Department of Education; Margaret Wood Hassan, individually; Christopher T. Sununu, as Governor; Virginia M. Barry, individually; and Frank Edelblut, as Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Education, appealed a superior court order granting plaintiffs Bedford School District and William Foote (collectively, “Bedford”), attorney’s fees in a case that Bedford had filed to recover adequate education funding that the State withheld in fiscal year 2016 because of a statutory limit on state funding imposed under RSA 198:41, III(b) (Supp. 2015) (repealed 2015, repeal effective July 1, 2017). On appeal, the State argued that because the trial court specifically declined to find that the State had acted in bad faith in this litigation, the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. The State also argued that Bedford waived its right to attorney’s fees when it accepted education funds appropriated by a bill that contained a waiver provision. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found after review of the superior court record, that Bedford waived its right to an award of attorney’s fees, and thus reversed the superior court’s order. View "Bedford School District v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Sixteen-year-old E.G. was petitioned as a delinquent for having committed the offenses of falsifying physical evidence, and possession of drugs. The petitions also alleged that E.G.’s case had been screened and deemed inappropriate for diversion because E.G. was “being petitioned as a delinquent for a felony level charge, and has several previous police contacts where he was involved in disturbances, criminal mischief and reckless conduct.” E.G. filed a motion to suppress, among other things, “all evidence obtained in violation of [his] right against self-incrimination.” Specifically, he contended that he had been subjected to custodial interrogation by police without having been informed of his rights in accordance with Miranda and New Hampshire v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6 (1985). The trial court denied the motion. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the encounter, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded a reasonable juvenile in E.G.’s position would not have believed himself to be in custody, and therefore, that E.G. was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the incriminating statements to the officer. View "In re E.G." on Justia Law

Defendant David Martinko appealed a superior court order denying his motion to vacate guilty pleas he entered in 2014 to three felony informations. The informations charged him with aggravated felonious sexual assault under the pattern sexual assault statute. He argued on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court: (1) the informations violated his state and federal constitutional protections against double jeopardy; and (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not advise the defendant of these violations. After review, the Supreme Court determined that under the federal Constitution, the State was permitted to seek separate convictions on the charged informations. Further, the Court determined trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise defendant his pleas were in violation of the State and Federal Double Jeopardy Clauses. View "New Hampshire v. Martinko" on Justia Law