Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Taneal Broadus was convicted by jury on one felony count each of possession of oxycodone and codeine, and one misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana. She challenged only the felony convictions, arguing on appeal that the superior court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence of the oxycodone and codeine obtained after an unconstitutional search. Defendant did not dispute the legality of the initial traffic stop for littering. Upon review of the facts in the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that from the totality of the circumstances, the frisk in this case was not supported by particularized and objective facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and presently dangerous: neither defendant nor the driver was suspected of having committed, or being about to commit, a violent offense. Further, defendant had no outstanding warrants, complied with the officer's requests during the stop, and made no threatening or furtive movements during the stop. Moreover, the stop did not occur in a high crime area. Therefore, the Court held that that the trial court erroneously concluded that the frisk was valid. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court found only that Locke “could have” arrested her; it did not decide how likely it was that the officer “would have” arrested her. Nor did it appear that the parties fully litigated in the trial court how probable the defendant’s arrest would have to be in order to satisfy the inevitable discovery doctrine. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on the likelihood defendant would have been arrested. On remand, even though defendant did not appeal her conviction for marijuana possession, she may argue, as she did on appeal, that the oxycodone and codeine would not have been “inevitably discovered,” in part, because there was no probable cause to arrest her for possession of marijuana. View "New Hampshire v. Broadus" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Roy was convicted by jury on two counts of kidnapping, on count of first degree assault, four counts of second degree assault, one count of criminal restraint, and two counts of simple assault. These charges stemmed from a night of drinking; that night defendant allegedly failed to take his prescription medications for depression and alcoholism. The night would end with one of his live-in girlfriend's three children having been seriously injured: the child had extensive bruising all over his body, especially in his abdominal area. His pancreas was severely injured, and he had lost approximately half of his blood due to internal bleeding. Part of his bowel was torn, which had caused the contents of his bowel to spill into his abdomen. Doctors performed multiple surgeries on him. During his recovery, he required the use of a feeding tube for 11 months. On appeal, defendant argued the Superior Court erred by denying: (1) motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cellular telephone; (2) motions in limine to both admit and exclude certain evidence; (3) motion to dismiss during trial based upon the State’s alleged failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence; and (4) subsequent motions to dismiss and for a directed verdict in which he alleged that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Roy" on Justia Law

The State appealed a Superior Court’s ruling that legislative changes to the definition of "earnable compensation" applicable to members of the New Hampshire Retirement System violated the Contract Clauses of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions. Plaintiffs and the intervenors cross-appealed the court’s rulings that members’ rights to retirement benefits do not vest until they accrue ten years of creditable service, and that members do not have vested rights to cost-of-living adjustments to their pensions. The New Hampshire Retirement System took no position on the legal issues raised in the appeal, but objected to the remedy sought by plaintiffs and the intervenors. After review of the parties' arguments, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on "earnable compensation," and affirmed its ruling on cost-of-living adjustments. View "American Federation of Teachers v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant Colleen Carr was convicted by jury on one count of felony criminal solicitation of accomplice to insurance fraud, and two counts of felony witness tampering. These charges arose out of a scheme defendant proposed in 2013, to burn down a commercial building she owned in Milford to collect the insurance proceeds. Defendant approached one of her tenants about her proposal, even offering the tenant to move things he wanted to keep, and cash money to "leave for two weeks." Afraid he would lose everything, the tenant informed authorities of defendant's plan. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to dismiss the criminal solicitation indictment; (2) declining to give the jury two of her requested instructions; and (3) denying her motion to dismiss the second witness tampering conviction on double jeopardy grounds. The defendant also argued the evidence was insufficient to convict her of criminal solicitation and of one of the witness tampering charges. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Carr" on Justia Law

Petitioner Cogswell Farm Condominium Association filed a declaratory judgment action with respect to two exclusions in insurance policies issued by respondents Tower Group, Inc. and Acadia Insurance Company. The trial court held that the two exclusions at issue precluded coverage for petitioner's underlying lawsuit against Lemery Building Company, Inc. In 2009, Cogswell sued Lemery and others, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and negligent supervision in the construction of 24 residential condominium units. Cogswell asserted that the "weather barrier" components of the units – including the water/ice shield, flashing, siding, and vapor barrier – were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Because the units were sold at different times and the policies were in effect during two different time periods, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that one policy exclusion served as a bar for coverage for each unit after it was sold. Furthermore, the Court found that the other exclusion was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in granting respondents summary judgment with respect to that exclusion. The trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Cogswell Farm Condominium Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Elizabeth Cloutier was convicted by jury on one count of burglary. The defendant was a friend of the victim and had recently helped the victim locate a safe that had been stolen from her home. Defendant went to the Berlin Police Department to take a voluntary polygraph test in connection with the investigation with that burglary. The defendant then signed a form acknowledging that she had read the enumerated rights and understood them. She also signed a form stating that she agreed to take the polygraph test. She was advised of her Miranda rights. Before the test began, defendant was asked if she had any involvement with the burglary. She denied any involvement. After four hours of questioning, defendant admitted her involvement in the burglary, explaining how she and two others took the safe, opened it and stole the contents. On appeal of her conviction, defendant argued the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress her confession. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Cloutier" on Justia Law

This case involved a four-unit condominium located on Boston Avenue in Hampton, known as the Boston Four Condominium. Each unit was a free-standing residential building. The four units are arranged in a rectangle; units 7 and 9 are adjacent to one another bordering Boston Avenue, and units 7R and 9R are rear units located behind units 7 and 9 respectively. In addition to the residential buildings, the condominium also includes certain property around the four units that the declaration designates as either “common area” or “limited common area.” Common area is property in which each unit owner has “an equal one-fourth (25%) undivided interest.” In the mid-2000s, the unit owners had several disagreements relating to the operation of the condominium. The issues included allocation of costs relating to the units’ connection to new sewer lines, the propriety of additions made to units 7R and 9R, and use of the common area. Pursuant to a clause in the declaration requiring the arbitration of disputes between and/or among unit owners, the parties submitted their dispute to a neutral arbitrator. Respondent Richard Holt filed a petition in superior court seeking to confirm the arbitrator's decision. Petitioners Gary and Katherine Keer and Frederick Guthrie filed a separate action appealing the arbitrator's decision. The trial court consolidated the two actions, held no hearing, granted Holt's petition and denied the Keers' and Guthrie's petitions. The court then confirmed the arbitrator’s award and “required [all parties] to comply with its terms.” On August 28, 2012, the condominium association recorded an amendment to the declaration and bylaws (2012 amendment). This amendment changed the designation of certain condominium property from common area to limited common area, to the benefit of units 7R and 9R, and to the detriment of the remaining units. In response to the amendment, the Keers filed a “Motion to Bring Forward to Enforce the Court Order/Contempt” with the trial court. In the motion, the Keers alleged numerous violations of the arbitrator’s 2009 decision. The trial court denied this motion. In April 2013, the condominium association recorded another amendment to the condominium instruments. This amendment inserted language into the declaration providing that written consent of three-fourths of the unit owners is sufficient to waive certain restrictive covenants. The amendment also inserted language into the bylaws that specifically allows condominium association meetings to take place if three-fourths of the unit owners attend. In May 2013, the Keers filed a “Motion for Contempt/Enforce the Court Orders” with the trial court. Among other things, the Keers alleged that the 2012 amendment violated the terms of the Condominium Act. The Keers also alleged that both amendments to the declaration were not legally effective because they had not been signed by a majority of the owners. The trial court denied the Keers’ motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the 2012 amendment was unlawful. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court either misconstrued the nature of the Keers’ request, or that it simply failed to address their statutory claims: the trial court erred when it stated that the Keers were only challenging "the court’s past decisions regarding the Condominium rules," and when it failed to address the Keers’ statutory argument. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling on the Keers’ motion for contempt and remanded the case for further consideration. View "Holt v. Keer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs George Maroun, Sr. and Edith Maroun filed a petition seeking to enjoin defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company from foreclosing on property owned by Mrs. Maroun. The Superior Court denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and granted the bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed, and after careful consideration of the Superior Court record, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Maroun, Sr. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1973, defendant was convicted of murdering Susan Randall. At the time of the murder, the police obtained fingernail clippings from Randall. Between 2000 and 2008, by various motions to the trial court, defendant obtained multiple rounds of DNA testing on the fingernail clippings; however, none of these tests led to post-conviction relief because defendant could not be excluded as the DNA contributor. In 2012, defendant, with the State’s consent, obtained further DNA testing on the remaining clippings. This most recent testing, which used new and more sensitive technology, produced results which, for the first time, showed that the clippings contained DNA material from two different males. Defendant could not be excluded as a contributor of one of the male DNA profiles, but was excluded as a contributor of the second. Based on the 2012 test results, defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that RSA chapter 651-D empowered the court to order a new trial when a defendant has obtained favorable DNA test results. The trial court determined that defendant was not entitled to relief. On appeal, defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by determining that RSA 651-D:2, VI(b) did not apply to DNA testing obtained with the State’s consent. After review, the Supreme Court agreed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Breest" on Justia Law