Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The New Hampshire House of Representatives certified a question of law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The House asked a single question: whether holding a House session remotely, either wholly or in part, whereby a quorum could be determined electronically, would violated Part II, Article 20, of the New Hampshire Constitution. The Supreme Court responded in the negative. "As long as the requisite number of representatives is 'present,' either in person or virtually, meaning that the requisite number is 'at hand' and '[n]ot absent,' Part II, Article 20 is satisfied." View "Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Quorum under Part II, Article 20)" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed a superior court order denying its motion to dismiss a petition filed by plaintiffs' New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, The Telegraph of Nashua, Union Leader Corporation, Newspapers of New England, Inc., Seacoast Newspapers, Inc., Keene Publishing Corporation, and American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire. The petition sought a declaration that the “Exculpatory Evidence Schedule” (EES), excluding the names of police officers with pending requests to be removed from the list, had to be made public pursuant to the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law. In denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court rejected the DOJ’s arguments that the EES was “confidential” under RSA 105:13-b (2013) and that it was exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law either because it was an “internal personnel practice” or a “personnel file” under RSA 91-A:5, IV (2013). After review, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s determinations that the EES was neither “confidential” under RSA 105:13-b nor exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law as an “internal personnel practice” or a “personnel file.” Nonetheless, the Court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for it to determine, in the first instance, whether as the DOJ contended, the EES constituted an “other file[] whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy.” View "New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism v. New Hampshire Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Defendant Stephen Girard was charged with two counts of misuse of a computer or network, two counts of indecent exposure, and two counts of witness tampering. He was acquitted of the witness tampering charges and convicted on the remaining indecent exposure and computer-related charges after a bench trial. On appeal, he argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to sever the computer-related indictments from the indecent exposure indictments. He also requested for a review family counseling records provided to the trial court for its in camera review to determine whether the court erred in failing to disclose additional material. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court judgment. View "New Hampshire v. Girard" on Justia Law

Defendant Keith Fitzgerald appealed a superior court order denying his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In December 2015, defendant was indicted on five counts of theft by unauthorized taking. Defense counsel, whose assistance is alleged to have been ineffective, was retained by defendant in March 2016, after defendant’s prior counsel withdrew. Defense counsel, defendant, and the prosecutor engaged in several plea discussions leading up to trial. Plea negotiations ultimately failed and the case went to trial. The jury heard testimony from the defendant that his father authorized the transactions. On cross-examination however, the State elicited a number of admissions from defendant, which defense counsel did not anticipate, that severely damaged defendant’s credibility and undercut his defense. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all five counts of theft by unauthorized taking. Ultimately, the court sentenced defendant to a term of not less than nine and one-half years and not more than 25 years in the New Hampshire State Prison. After an evidentiary hearing on defendant's new trial motion, the court ruled that defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing that the outcome of his case would have been different but for his counsel’s performance. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by concluding that, even if defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, defendant was not prejudiced by: (1) defense counsel’s failure to adequately advise defendant regarding the merits of the State’s plea offer; or (2) counsel’s failure either to object to the trial court’s jury instructions on a sentence enhancement provision on the basis that it had not been presented to the grand jury for indictment, or to move for dismissal of the indictment on that same basis. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined defense counsel did not adequately advise defendant about a sentence enhancement and the merits of the State's plea offer relative to defendant's likelihood of success at trial, and but for counsel's deficient performance, there was a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the State's plea offer. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

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