Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Laura Williams appealed circuit court orders denying her petitions to annul records of conviction and arrest, as well as charges not resulting in conviction, because she had subsequent convictions. After review of the facts specific to defendant's request, the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petitions to annul: (1) two charges that did not result in conviction; and (2) convictions from October 2007 and November 2012 for simple assault. The matter was remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine whether granting the petitions would assist in defendant’s rehabilitation and was consistent with the public welfare. View "New Hampshire v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant John Burt, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, appealed a superior court order that dismissed his complaint against Stephen Shurtleff, in his official capacity as the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. In the complaint, appellant, together with co-plaintiffs Kevin Craig, Alicia Lekas, Tony Lekas, and Hershel Nunez, each a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, alleged that House Rule 63 - which, with limited exceptions, prohibited the carrying or possession of any deadly weapon in Representatives Hall, as well as in the anterooms, cloakrooms, and House gallery - violated their fundamental rights under Part I, Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that because the issue presented a nonjusticiable political question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined the issue as to whether House Rule 63 violated appellant's fundamental right to keep and bear arms under Part I, Article 2-a of the State Constitution was indeed justiciable, therefore the trial court erred when it dismissed the complaint. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Burt v. Speaker of the House of Representatives" on Justia Law

Shawn Minson was convicted after a bench trial for felony cocaine possession, possession with intent to dispense the controlled drug fentanyl in a quantity of five grams or more, and possession with intent to dispense the controlled drug crack cocaine in a quantity of five grams or more. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a “protective sweep” of his motel room, and by denying his post-conviction motion effectively seeking to reopen the motion-to-suppress record. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Minson" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Munroe was convicted by jury on one count of assault by a prisoner. He argued on appeal the superior court erred by: (1) striking his notice of self-defense; (2) overruling his hearsay objection to testimony from a medical professional as to the victim’s identity; (3) denying him leave to represent himself; (4) failing to allow his trial attorneys to withdraw their representation pursuant to the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct; and (5) trying him in absentia. After a review of the trial court record, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the superior court erred in striking defendant's notice of self-defense. The Court found N.H. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2)(A)'s requirement that defendant “set[] forth the grounds” was not tantamount to a requirement that the defendant proffer evidence in support of the noticed defense. "The rule does not allow trial courts to require that defendants identify evidentiary support for a noticed defense. Because that is what the court did here, it erred." Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "New Hampshire v. Munroe" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Turcotte was convicted by jury on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and five counts of felonious sexual assault, all involving a minor. Defendant directly appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motions for a mistrial based on: (1) testimony about similar, uncharged acts; and (2) prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. In a discretionary appeal which was joined with his direct appeal, defendant argued the Superior Court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on the trial court’s closure of the courtroom during closing arguments. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Turcotte" on Justia Law

Bruce Moore pled guilty to burglary. He was ordered to pay restitution to the owners of the home that he had burglarized. A portion of the ordered restitution was for the cost of a home security system that the homeowners had installed in their home after the burglary. The specific question presented for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's review was whether the cost of the security system installed by the homeowners was an “economic loss,” as defined by RSA 651:62, III(a), and was therefore a compensable expense under New Hampshire's restitution statute. The Court concluded the cost of the system was not an "economic loss" and reversed the superior court's judgment. View "New Hampshire v. Moore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Paul Martin appealed a superior court order denying his request for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant City of Rochester (city), ruling that the city’s technical review group (TRG) was not a public body for purposes of New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, and that the city’s copy fee schedule was in compliance with RSA 91-A:4, IV (Supp. 2016). On appeal, plaintiff argued that: (1) the TRG was a “public body,” as defined by RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (2013), because it was an “advisory committee,” and is therefore subject to the open-meeting requirement of RSA 91-A:2 (Supp. 2019); and (2) the city’s copy fee schedule was prohibited by RSA 91-A:4, IV, because it charged citizens requesting a copy of a public record more than the “actual cost” of making the copy. Plaintiff requested copies of certain documents from the city relating to the planning board and the TRG. The city charged a fee for making copies of city records or files: for black and white photocopies, the fee was fifty cents per page for the first ten pages and ten cents per page thereafter. After a bench trial, the court denied plaintiff’s prayers for relief. The New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed with plaintiff's interpretation of RSA 91- A:1-a, I: plaintiff read the phrase "primary purpose" as relating only to the TRG’s role in “considering” an application, not necessarily “advising” on it. Under this reading, plaintiff contended the TRG’s primary purpose was to consider whatever “subject matter . . . the city manager has designated for consideration.” Further, the Supreme Court concurred with the superior court's finding that the City's fee for photocopying was based upon the actual cost of copying, and not the labor associated with making the copies. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. View "Martin v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Union Leader Corporation and American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH), appealed a superior court order denying their petition for the release of “complete, unredacted copies” of: (1) “the 120-page audit report of the Salem Police Department . . . dated October 12, 2018 focusing on internal affairs complaint investigations”; (2) “the 15-page addendum focused on the [Salem Police] Department’s culture”; and (3) “the 42-page audit report of the [Salem Police] Department dated September 19, 2018 focusing on time and attendance practices” (collectively referred to as the “Audit Report”). The trial court upheld many of the redactions made to the Audit Report by defendant Town of Salem (Town), concluding that they were required by the “internal personnel practices” exemption to the Right-to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91-A, as interpreted in Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624 (1993), and its progeny. In a separate opinion, the New Hampshire Supreme Court overruled Fenniman to the extent that it broadly interpreted the “internal personnel practices” exemption and overruled our prior decisions to the extent that they relied on that broad interpretation. Here, the Court overruled Fenniman to the extent that it decided that records related to “internal personnel practices” were categorically exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law instead of being subject to a balancing test to determine whether such materials are exempt from disclosure. The Court overruled prior decisions to the extent that they applied the per se rule established in Fenniman. The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings in light of these changes. View "Union Leader Corporation v. Town of Salem" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. appealed a superior court order denying its petition to disclose an arbitration decision concerning the termination of a police officer by defendant City of Portsmouth. Seacoast primarily argued that the New Hampshire Supreme Court previously misconstrued the “internal personnel practices” exemption of our Right-to-Know Law. See RSA 91-A:5, IV (2013). In this opinion, the Court took the opportunity to redefine what falls under the “internal personnel practices” exemption, overruling its prior interpretation set forth in Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624 (1993). The Court concluded that only a narrow set of governmental records, namely those pertaining to an agency’s internal rules and practices governing operations and employee relations, fell within that exemption. Accordingly, the Court held the arbitration decision at issue here did not fall under the “internal personnel practices” exemption, vacated the trial court’s order, and remanded for the trial court’s consideration of whether, or to what extent, the arbitration decision was exempt from disclosure because it is a “personnel . . . file[ ].” View "Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire certified questions of law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Plaintiffs Caroline Casey, Maggie Flaherty, and the New Hampshire Democratic Party filed suit over voting eligibility. Casey and Flaherty were Dartmouth College students who wished to vote in New Hampshire while attending college, but who did not intend to remain in New Hampshire after graduation. Both had driver’s licenses issued by states other than New Hampshire. In 2018, both registered to vote in New Hampshire. Neither Casey nor Flaherty owned a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court held: (1) the definitions of "resident" and "residence" were effectively the same as "domicile" such that one with a New Hampshire "domicile" was necessarily a New Hampshire "resident;" (2) a student who claims a New Hampshire domicile was a New Hampshire resident; (4) an individual who claims a New Hampshire domicile necessarily establishes a "bona fide residency;" and (5) given the definition of non-resident in RSA 259:67, I for the Motor Vehicle Code, college students who resided in New Hampshire for more than six months in any year were required to obtain New Hampshire drivers’ licenses by RSA 263:1 if they wished to drive in the state and were required by RSA 261:40 to register in New Hampshire any vehicles they kept in the state. The Supreme Court declined to answer the federal district court's question (3), because the answer to that question was not “determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court.” View "Casey v. New Hampshire Secretary of State" on Justia Law