Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Trinity EMS, Inc. appealed a circuit court order dismissing its collection action against defendant Timothy Coombs. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant in 2003. Defendant made some payments, but as of March 2012, the judgment had not been satisfied. Plaintiff filed a new suit in 2012, for a new judgment, which it could use to attach the defendant’s real estate, because the first judgment was outside of the statute of limitations for an action of debt upon a judgment. In dismissing plaintiff's 2012 suit, the trial court ordered that "all hearings should be scheduled in [the 2003 action’s docket]." Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, finding (in relevant part): "There is no Cause of Action for obtaining 'an attachment' which is what Plaintiff is seeking. . . . Plaintiff has a judgment. It was apparently never recorded and is beyond the limitation period set forth in RSA 511." On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in dismissing its 2012 action because its complaint set forth a claim upon which relief could have been granted. The Supreme Court disagreed after review of the pertinent New Hampshire case law: plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Trinity EMS, Inc. v. Coombs " on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Tsopas faced multiple felony and misdemeanor charges arising out of a single alleged drunk driving incident. The district division set bail initially at $250,000 cash with conditions, but subsequently reduced it to $75,000 cash with conditions. The State asserted, and the defendant did not contest, that this reduction was in response to the defendant's request and over the State’s objection. Defendant thereafter appealed the Superior Court's order denying his third motion to modify bail. He contended on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to conduct a hearing on the motion or issue written findings of fact pursuant to RSA 597:6-e, II; and (2) unsustainably exercising its discretion by setting an "unreasonably high cash only bail." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Tsopas " on Justia Law

Following his conviction on four counts of sale of a narcotic drug and the Supreme Court's affirmance of his conviction on appeal, defendant Sean Brown filed a motion for new trial in superior court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He appealed the Superior Court's decision concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his claim and, therefore, denying his motion for new trial. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was one of first impression: the proper forum in which a defendant should raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial, the State contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim and, therefore, should refrain from deciding it. In response, defendant argued that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim should be treated in the same manner as ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, which are routinely resolved in superior court. The trial court agreed with the State, adopting the view of a number of courts that such a claim “must be presented to the appellate court with jurisdiction over the appeal.” On appeal, the State’s position was different: it argued that claims should be brought in the original trial court. Thus, both parties urged the Court to adopt the same procedure. Because the Supreme Court agreed that “appellate courts have an interest in avoiding cases which require the Court to perform the unfamiliar task of fact finding,” the Court concluded that such claims should be heard in the trial court. "Because the trial court is better equipped to resolve the factual disputes that frequently underlie assertions of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we conclude that the proper forum for raising such claims is the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand." View "New Hampshire v. Brown " on Justia Law

Defendant Chad Belleville appealed his conviction for second degree assault. He argued that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "New Hampshire v. Belleville " on Justia Law

Defendant Adam Mueller was convicted by jury on three counts of felony wiretapping. On appeal, he argued that the superior court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of the felony wiretapping statute required a "purposely" mental state when the statute called for a "willful" standard. The State agreed that the trial court’s instruction as to the requisite mens rea was erroneous, but asserted that reversal of the defendant’s convictions was not warranted because the prerequisites for application of the plain error doctrine have not been met. The Supreme Court agreed with defendant's argument on this issue, reversed the trial court, and remanded the case for a new trial.View "New Hampshire v. Mueller" on Justia Law

Juvenile Trevor G. was arraigned on a delinquency petition alleging he had endangered the welfare of a minor. He moved to dismiss the petition because none of the State's witnesses against him were present, and therefore the State could not proceed with its case. The State acknowledged none of its witnesses were present and did not object to the motion, but requested leave to file for reconsideration if it learned there was a good reason why its witnesses did not show. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and the State did not move for reconsideration. A few months later, the State refiled its petition. Trevor moved to dismiss, arguing that the adjudicatory hearing was outside the statutory time limit. The court again held a hearing, and again the witnesses did not show. The Court denied Trevor's motion, finding that because Trevor initiated the dismissal, the State was not barred from re-filing. The Supreme Court granted the trial court's request for interlocutory appeal. The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred in its conclusion that the statutory time limits for the State to re-file its delinquency petition for lack of prosecution was not violated because the dismissal was initiated by the juvenile. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation, and reversed the order denying Trevor's motion to dismiss. View "In re Trevor G." on Justia Law

Defendant William Ramsey appealed his convictions on second degree assault, reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and criminal threatening. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court erred by : (1) denying his request to cross-examine the victim about an allegedly false statement she made on her 2010 application to renew her driver’s license; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence that he treated the victim’s dog well; and (3) imposing consecutive sentences for second degree assault and reckless conduct with a deadly weapon. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions.View "New Hampshire v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

Defendant John Smith, appealed the sentence he received after being convicted by jury of receipt of stolen property. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court committed plain error by imposing a felony-level sentence instead of a misdemeanor-level sentence when the jury was not instructed that it had to find that the stolen property consisted of firearms. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Smith " on Justia Law

Petitioner Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc. appealed a New Hampshire Waste Management Council (Council) decision upholding a determination by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) to grant a permit to intervenor Pioneer Point Enterprises, LLC (Pioneer), to build and operate a solid waste facility adjacent to the petitioner's property. In May 2008, Pioneer applied for a permit to operate a solid waste management facility in an existing structure near the Souhegan River in Greenville. The Souhegan River was a "designated river" under the New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Act (RMPA), and under the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). DES denied the permit, concluding that the proposed facility violated the 250-foot setback requirement for solid waste facilities specified in the RMPA. Approximately six months later, Pioneer submitted an amended application, accompanied by a request for a waiver to build a new access driveway within fifty feet of the petitioner’s property. After the hearing, the Council ruled that the petitioner failed to prove that the issuance of the permit and waiver was either unreasonable or unlawful under the circumstances of this case. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Council erred when it: (1) concluded that only Unit 2 constituted the facility, or, alternatively, that Unit 2 itself did not violate the 250-foot setback; (2) failed to rule that because of Pioneer’s pre-permit construction, DES was required to deny the permit; (3) failed to consider the impact on the petitioner of granting the driveway setback waiver; and (4) reviewed the waiver of the driveway setback under an incorrect standard. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Kurt Carpentino appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to amend one of his sentences based on an amendment to the statute under which his sentence was based. The statute in question took effect after the offense, but before defendant's conviction became final. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Carpentino" on Justia Law