Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Stephen Dichiara, Jr. appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendants Sanborn Regional School District and Robert Ficker on municipal immunity grounds. Plaintiff tried out for the high school basketball team; Ficker was the team's coach. At the tryout, plaintiff played in a 'loose ball' drill when he collided with another player and suffered substantial injury to his arm. Plaintiff sued for negligence and respondeat superior liability of the school district. On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court misinterpreted the applicable statute when it held that a municipality is only liable for negligence arising out of the ownership, occupation, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle or premises. Essentially, the plaintiff maintained that, under RSA 507-B:2, a governmental unit is liable for bodily injuries “caused by its fault or by fault attributable to it,” regardless of any connection to a motor vehicle or premises. While most personal injury actions are unlikely to involve a nexus with a premises or vehicle, there are circumstances under which a plaintiff could recover for a personal injury under RSA 507-B:2. This case did not fall within that exception. Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment.View "Dichiara, Jr. v. Sanborn Regional High School" on Justia Law

Respondent, father of Deven O., appealed a circuit court order that terminated his parental rights to Deven on abandonment and failure to support grounds. The circuit court denied a motion for reconsideration where the father asserted he had no legal obligation to support the child because he was neither listed as father on the child's birth certificate nor had been ordered by a court to pay support. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, finding that the father indeed made efforts to communicate with the child, and even filed a parenting petition to request visitation time. With regard to abandonment, the Court found that the circuit court faulted the father for not instituting the parenting petition when the mother made it difficult for him to do so. As such, the Court concluded the mother failed to prove statutory grounds for termination of the father's parental rights, and reversed the circuit court's termination order. View "In re Deven O." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Cheney was convicted by jury of aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping, theft by unauthorized taking, aggravating driving while intoxicated, disobeying an officer and reckless conduct. On appeal, he argued the trial court erroneously denied his motions to dismiss the aggravated felonious sexual assault and reckless conduct indictments. Finding the evidence presented a trial sufficient to support those convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Cheney" on Justia Law

Respondent-wife Kimberly Lyon (now McConnell) appealed a circuit court order granting summary judgment to petitioner-husband John Lyon, and denying her petition to bring forward and modify alimony. On appeal, she argued that the trial court applied the wrong standard to her petition by requiring her to show a substantial change of circumstances. She contended that to prevail on her petition, she must show that she has a continuing need for alimony and that the Husband has a continuing ability to pay. Although the Supreme Court agreed with Wife that the "substantial change of circumstances" test was not the correct one to apply to her petition, the Court disagreed with the standard that she articulated on appeal. Because the trial court did not apply the correct standard when it ruled on Wife's petition, the Court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In the Matter Lyon " on Justia Law

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