Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Jason Candello was convicted by jury for second-degree assault. He appealed, arguing primarily the State offered insufficient evidence to prove the victim suffered serious bodily injury. He also argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and as such, the trial court erred in denying him a new trial. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court found no reversible error from the conviction, and affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Candello" on Justia Law

The State of New Hampshire moved to enforce administrative subpoenas served on defendants Actavis Pharma, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The State was investigating defendants’ role in allegedly causing health care providers to prescribe opioids to treat chronic pain. Defendants resisted, arguing the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) engagement of outside counsel was unlawful. In addition, defendants moved for a protective order, seeking to “bar the Attorney General from engaging contingent fee counsel to: (a) participate in or assume responsibility for any aspect of the State’s investigation of alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act . . . ; or (b) participate in or assume responsibility for any subsequent enforcement action pertaining to alleged CPA violations.” Defendants argued that the OAG’s fee agreements with the firm Cohen Milstein: (1) violated RSA 21-G:22 and :23 (2012) (amended 2016); (2) violated New Hampshire common law; (3) were ultra vires because the OAG did not comply with RSA 7:12 (2013) (amended 2016) or :6-f (Supp. 2016); (4) violated the doctrine of separation of powers; (5) violated the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct; and (6) violated due process under the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions. The State replied that an objection to the Attorney General’s use of outside counsel was not appropriate justification for refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas, and that defendants lacked standing to raise that complaint. The trial court denied the State’s motion to enforce the subpoenas and granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order “to the extent that the OAG and Cohen Milstein’s contingency fee agreement is invalid.” The trial court determined that the defendants had demonstrated standing to bring their claims, that the fee agreement was void, and therefore denied the State’s motion to enforce the subpoenas on that basis. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded defendants lacked standing to challenge the outside counsel agreement. It reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Actavis Pharma, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner’s receipt of developmental services was voluntary, and accordingly he retained the right to “seek a change in [developmental] services or withdraw entirely from the [developmental] service delivery system.” Petitioner Wayne Sawyer had a developmental disability and history of mental illness. He received state-administered developmental and mental health services and lived at the Laconia Designated Receiving Facility (Laconia DRF), a state-operated facility. Prior to his move to Laconia DRF, petitioner requested that his area agency affiliation for developmental services be changed to respondent Lakes Region Community Services (LRCS), the area agency serving Laconia. LRCS denied his request. Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The AAU affirmed, finding that the petitioner failed to prove that his move to Laconia DRF constituted a change in legal residence. On appeal, the petitioner argues that, under RSA chapter 171-A and its implementing regulations, he had a right to change his area agency affiliation to LRCS. LRCS counters that, because the petitioner remains institutionalized and was not conditionally discharged, his move was involuntary and, therefore, he had no right to change area agency affiliation. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that he had a right to change his area agency affiliation. View "Petition of Wayne Sawyer" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order that granted defendant Daniel Jesus Cora’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless entry by the police into his vehicle. On appeal, the State contended that the police were allowed to enter the vehicle without a warrant either under the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which the State asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopt under the New Hampshire Constitution, or because the defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy in the interior space of his vehicle that is visible to the public. Alternatively, the State asked that the Supreme Court conclude New Hampshire v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445 (1995) has been abrogated by our decision in New Hampshire v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (2003), and that the Court adopt a “slightly more narrow exception” to the warrant requirement based upon the defendant’s diminished expectation of privacy in the “publicly visible areas of his car.” The Court declined to overrule Sterndale. However, it agreed that Sterndale was abrogated by Goss, at least in part, and that its abrogation required reevaluation of whether to adopt an automobile exception to the State warrant requirement. The Court recognized a limited automobile exception to the warrant requirement pursuant to which the police do not need to obtain a warrant to enter an automobile when the vehicle has been lawfully stopped while in transit and the police have probable cause to believe that a plainly visible item in the vehicle is contraband. In this case, the police did not need a warrant before entering defendant’s vehicle because the vehicle was subject to a lawful traffic stop, and the police had probable cause to believe that the baggie and cigarette, which were plainly visible, were drugs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "New Hampshire v. Cora" on Justia Law

Defendant, David J. Widi, Jr. appealed a superior court order denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. In February 2004, the defendant filed a notice of intent to plead guilty to a charge of misdemeanor reckless conduct in exchange for a negotiated sentence. Almost four years later, defendant was charged with the federal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm, with his felony reckless conduct conviction serving as the predicate felony. In 2010, the defendant filed in the trial court a “Motion to Correct the Record.” In that motion, the defendant asserted that it “ha[d] recently come to [his] attention that the [m]ittimus” for his conviction reflected that he was convicted of felony reckless conduct. He further asserted that a felony indictment for reckless conduct — instead of a misdemeanor information for reckless conduct - “was erroneously submitted at sentencing . . . causing the misclassification of [his] conviction in the [m]ittimus.” Consequently, he requested that the mittimus for his reckless conduct conviction be “correct[ed]” to reflect that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor reckless conduct, not felony reckless conduct. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. In 2014, defendant filed this petition for a writ of coram nobis. He argued that the trial court erred by denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the common law writ of coram nobis existed in New Hampshire. This case presented the distinct issue of whether a trial court may deny a defendant’s petition for a writ of coram nobis without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court held that a trial court may deny a petition for a writ of coram nobis without holding an evidentiary hearing if the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to coram nobis relief. Here, because the record clearly demonstrates that no sound reason exists for the defendant’s failure to seek earlier relief, the trial court did not err when it denied the defendant’s petition without a hearing. View "New Hampshire v. Widi" on Justia Law

Defendant Abraham DePaula appealed after he was convicted by jury on one count of burglary, five counts of theft by unauthorized taking, and two counts of conspiracy to commit theft by unauthorized taking. He argued the trial court erred when it: (1) ruled that his testimony opened the door to evidence of his alleged involvement in an unrelated homicide; (2) denied his motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing testimony regarding physical and sexual assaults that occurred during the burglary; (3) allowed the State to introduce lay testimony from custodians of cellular telephone records regarding the range of cell towers; and (4) sentenced the defendant on both conspiracy to commit theft convictions. The State conceded that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was plain error for the trial court to sentence the defendant on both conspiracy convictions. Accordingly, the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated defendant’s conviction on one of the conspiracy indictments, but affirmed in all other respects. View "New Hampshire v. DePaula" on Justia Law

Defendant Peggy Starr appealed her conviction on one count of second degree assault, as a lesser included offense of first degree assault. In 2010, at six and one-half years of age, D.A. was hospitalized at a weight of just 23.4 pounds. At the time of his hospitalization, he suffered developmental delays, was failing to gain weight, and was short for his age. Ultimately, D.A. was diagnosed with failure to thrive due to malnutrition and psychosocial dwarfism. D.A. had been in the care of the defendant and her daughter, Christina Thomas. In addition to administering physical discipline, she would control his eating to modify his behavior. She took food away from him to punish him even after one of his treatment providers instructed that she not do so. Although defendant knew that D.A. was not growing taller, was not gaining weight, and was developmentally delayed, she told authorities at D.A.’s school that he was not to be given an extra lunch if he ate his packed lunch on the way to school, and she continued to withhold food from him as punishment. Within ten months of D.A.’s removal from the care of defendant and Thomas, his weight nearly doubled. Defendant was charged with first degree assault for knowingly causing serious bodily injury to D.A. by causing his “failure to thrive” condition by failing to provide him with proper nutrition. She moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the first degree assault statute did not impose criminal liability upon defendants for omissions. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that “first degree assault as charged in this case may be established by conduct constituting a voluntary act or a voluntary omission.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "New Hampshire v. Starr" on Justia Law

Because the issuance of extraterritorial search warrants is not expressly prohibited by the legislature, and because the amicus did not identify any constitutional limitations applicable to these facts, the Court held that the circuit court would not have exceeded its territorial jurisdiction by issuing the search warrant at issue here. In February 2016, an Ashland police officer applied for a search warrant for certain cellular telephone records at an AT&T facility in Florida. New Hampshire sought these records in connection with a criminal investigation being conducted by the Ashland Police Department. Citing the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in New Hampshire v. Mello, 162 N.H. 115 (2011), the circuit court denied the State’s application, reasoning that it “ha[d] no authority to issue a warrant against a foreign corporation.” Seeking reconsideration, the State argued that “[u]nder Florida law, [AT&T] is required to treat an out-of-state subpoena or warrant as if it were issued by a Florida Court.” It also argued, among other things, that our decision in Mello “d[id] not preclude the issuance of the warrant.” The circuit court denied the State’s renewed application, again relying upon “Mello.” The Supreme Court determined that “Mello” was not controlling here. Now, as a matter of first impression, the Court considered the issue of whether the circuit court would have exceeded the scope of its territorial jurisdiction by issuing an extraterritorial search warrant, specifically, a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of an electronic communication service provider’s records in Florida. The Court reversed. View "In re Search Warrant for Records From AT&T" on Justia Law

The general rule is that evidence must be excluded if it is discovered as a result of police misconduct. “The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” Defendant Scott Robinson appealed his convictions for armed robbery and first degree assault. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed his convictions, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless entry by police into his apartment. Upon remand, defendant again moved to suppress, inter alia, physical evidence obtained “from the time of the warrantless entry into his apartment” and the fruits thereof. The trial court denied his request to suppress the physical evidence, after finding that it was properly seized during a subsequent search pursuant to a valid warrant. Defendant was convicted following a subsequent jury trial. In this appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred by considering, upon remand, the doctrines of independent source and inevitable discovery; (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective because she did not argue that the doctrines of law of the case and waiver barred the State from raising the independent source and inevitable discovery arguments in the trial court following remand; and (3) that, even if the trial court did not err in considering the State’s arguments, remand is necessary to address certain factual issues. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Defendant Kyree Rice appealed his convictions for one count of attempted murder, and two counts of first degree assault. He argued the superior court erred by not instructing the jury on the principle that the “act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force,” and in prohibiting cross-examination of the victim about the victim’s use of cocaine and marijuana on the night in question. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed the court erred in failing to give the requested jury instruction, it reversed and remanded. View "New Hampshire v. Rice" on Justia Law