Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Michael Addison was convicted for the capital murder of a Manchester police officer for which he received the death sentence. Defendant contended on appeal that numerous errors at trial undermined his conviction and sentence. After careful review of each of defendant's twenty-two contentions of error, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.View "New Hampshire v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant Karen Gagne appealed her convictions for theft. She argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was insufficient on two of nine counts. Accordingly, the Court affirmed defendant's conviction on seven, reversed on two and remanded for further proceedings.View " New Hampshire v. Gagne" on Justia Law

Defendant Guilbert Germain appealed his conviction for criminal threatening with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the gun he displayed in the apartment was a firearm, rather than a pellet gun. He contended there was no direct evidence that the gun was a firearm, and that to be sufficient, circumstantial evidence must foreclose all other rational conclusions. Therefore, he asserted that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude a rational conclusion that he brandished a pellet gun rather than a firearm. Finding the evidence was indeed sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Germain" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Lawrence Leeds appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendant BAE Systems (BAE) in his wrongful discharge action. Leeds worked at-will for BAE as a quality control inspector from 2001 until his discharge in April 2009. In 2009, BAE discharged Leeds for violating the company’s standards of conduct as a result of two separate incidents at the company’s Hudson facility. Leeds was involved in an altercation with another employee. He defended his actions as "self-defense," and argued on appeal that the trial court should have allowed a jury to determine whether public policy would have encouraged his conduct. After examining all material facts in the light most favorable to him, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in ruling that Leeds could not show that public policy grounds justified his actions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.View "Leeds v. BAE Systems" on Justia Law

Defendant Barion Perry appealed after a jury convicted him of theft and burglary. He argued that the superior court erred in denying the indictments against him on double jeopardy grounds. Detectives interviewed defendant following his arrest. The interview was recorded. Prior to defendant’s first trial, counsel for defendant and the State agreed that certain statements made by defendant during the interview should be redacted before the recording was played for the jury. Shortly after the State played a redacted version of the recording, defense counsel advised the trial court that three of the statements that should have been redacted were not, in fact, redacted. Defense counsel requested neither a mistrial nor a curative instruction. Because the court was concerned that defense counsel could not effectively advise the defendant about a mistrial as counsel had failed to “mark” two of the statements for redaction prior to trial, it considered assigning independent counsel to speak with the defendant about the mistrial request. The court ultimately concluded, however, that manifest necessity required a mistrial because the jury heard "damaging," "inflammatory" information that a curative instruction would not have been able to address adequately. The court did not assign independent counsel because it concluded that, given the prejudicial nature of the unredacted statements, it "could be ineffective assistance of counsel" for another lawyer to advise the defendant not to seek a mistrial. The trial court declared a mistrial over the defendant’s objection and scheduled a new trial. Prior to the second trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments with prejudice. He argued that the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity, and, therefore, that the double jeopardy provisions of the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions barred retrial. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in finding that manifest necessity required a mistrial. Consequently, the mistrial declaration did not bar the defendant’s retrial on double jeopardy grounds. View "New Hampshire v. Perry" on Justia Law

Petitioner New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL) appealed the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy’s decision that NHRTL did not have standing to participate in administrative actions involving the renewal of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s (PPNNE) limited retail drug distributor license. NHRTL sent a written complaint to the Board, alleging that PPNNE did not have a state contract in place with DHHS and was therefore illegally dispensing prescription drugs at its clinics. In its letter, NHRTL claimed that PPNNE’s contract with DHHS had expired on June 30, 2011, and had not been renewed. On June 18, 2012, PPNNE sent renewal applications for its six clinics to the Board, and on July 2, 2012, the Board sent letters to each clinic acknowledging receipt of the application. Each letter stated that the Board would not review the renewal application until August 15, 2012, but notified the clinics that it had “ministerially” renewed its licenses through September 1, 2012. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board, finding that none of NHRTL's generalized claims alleged NHRTL suffered an injury in fact, or that its own rights have been, or would have been specifically or directly affected. "NHRTL does not claim that any of its individual members has suffered, or will suffer, harm - it refers to deaths caused by the alleged failure to regulate that did not affect NHRTL’s membership. Instead, these concerns merely represent NHRTL’s interest in what it believes to be a public problem. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that NHRTL lacked standing." View "Appeal of New Hampshire Right to Life" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, defendant Theadore Mitchell, was convicted of one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and two class A misdemeanor counts of violation of a protective order. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that he offered to take a polygraph test. Defendant also argued that the trial court plainly erred when it allocated his pretrial confinement credit. The State conceded that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in "New Hampshire v. Edson," defendant's sentence was plainly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentences imposed and remand for resentencing in accordance with "Edson." The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "New Hampshire v. Mitchell " on Justia Law

In 2010, defendant’s ex-wife complained to the Hampstead Police Department that, while using defendant’s computer, she clicked on the browsing history and found disturbing links to websites that potentially contained child pornography. In a follow-up meeting with the police, defendant’s ex-wife explained that she had started checking the defendant’s browsing history six months earlier, and it was at that time that she first noticed child pornography on defendant’s computer. According to the police affidavit for the search warrant, she described the images as depicting “nude young undeveloped girls (well under 18 years of age).” Based upon this information, the police secured a search warrant and seized defendant’s computer. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the search warrant, arguing, in part, that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it did not provide a sufficient description of the alleged child pornography. After hearing, the superior court granted the motion, ruling that the search warrant did not describe the images with sufficient particularity. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Letoile" on Justia Law

Defendant Bryan Maga appealed his conviction for driving with an alcohol concentration of .02 or higher, while he was under the age of twenty-one (DUI). On appeal, he argued that the circuit court erred when it: (1) admitted into evidence a certificate from a state crime laboratory employee attesting that the breathalyzer machine used by the Salem Police Department was in working order; and (2) ruled that the police had probable cause to arrest him. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Maga" on Justia Law

Defendant Eugene Roe appealed circuit court decision awarding plaintiffs Leigh Mae Friedline and Zebadiah Kellogg-Roe a writ of possession. In 1959, the defendant purchased property in Greenville. In 1971, he conveyed the property to Brookwood Ecology Center, Inc. Brookwood reconveyed the house and barn on the property to defendant in 1999. In 2004, defendant conveyed the house and barn to his son, plaintiff Kellogg-Roe. In 2009, Kellogg-Roe transferred a twenty percent interest in the buildings to Friedline. That same year, Kellogg-Roe gave Friedline a power of attorney to act as his agent. Defendant has lived on the property since he purchased it. In 2012, Friedline served him with an eviction notice, ordering him to vacate the premises within thirty days. Although the eviction notice stated that the buildings were owned by both Kellogg-Roe and Friedline, only Friedline signed the notice. When defendant did not vacate the premises, plaintiffs filed a landlord and tenant writ. Following a hearing, the district division awarded plaintiffs a writ of possession. On appeal, defendant argued that he properly asserted a plea of title and, consequently, the district division erred by not transferring the case to superior court. He further argued that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the issues raised in his plea of title. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether the district division had jurisdiction in this case. Rather than providing defendant with the opportunity to enter his action in superior court, the district division held a hearing during which it addressed, among other issues, the merits of his claim to a life estate in the property. Because jurisdiction to resolve questions of title and matters of equity lies with the superior court, the Supreme Court concluded the district division erred by ruling on this claim. Consequently, the Court vacated the district division’s order. View "Friedline v. Roe" on Justia Law