Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Stephen Stompor petitioned the Supreme Court for review of a probate court decision that granted him and his brother Stan access to an attorney's file who drafted estate plan documents for their parents. In 2001 and 2002, the parents met with the attorney regarding their estate plans. The attorney drafted plan documents for them, however, due to a conflict, the attorney withdrew from representing them, and the estate plan documents were not executed. In 2004, petitioner wrote to the attorney to inquire whether the attorney would again represent the parents with regard to their estate plans. The attorney declined. Petitioner then helped his parents prepare certain estate plan documents, and the parents executed those documents in October 2004. In October 2007, the respondent filed a petition on the parents' behalf, to determine the legality of certain acts of petitioner and requesting, among other things, an accounting of the petitioner's handling of all of the parents' funds either personally or as a trustee of his father's living trust. In June 2009, respondent successfully moved to amend his petition to allege that, in 2004, the petitioner, as the parents' fiduciary, exercised undue influence over the parents when they lacked the capacity to understand the estate plan documents that gave the petitioner and his family exclusive inheritance rights to the parents' assets to the exclusion of the parents' other children. The parents passed away during the late summer of 2009. In February 2010, while his petition was still pending, the respondent sought disclosure from the Attorney of any information he had regarding his contact with the parents in connection with the challenged 2004 estate plan. Petitioner objected, arguing that the attorney-client privilege prohibited disclosure of any documents the attorney had relating to his consultations with his parents. The court ruled that the attorney's entire file was discoverable because it was relevant to a dispute among the decedents' children and to whether the petitioner unduly influenced the parents' decisions regarding their estate plan. The Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed the probate court's ruling. View "Petition of Stephen Stompor" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason Durgin appealed after a jury convicted him of second degree assault and negligent homicide. He argued that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his request to admit evidence of alternative perpetrators; (2) precluding him from cross-examining a witness about using his electronic benefits (EBT) card without his permission; and (3) denying his motion to set aside the verdict as conclusively against the weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Durgin" on Justia Law

Defendant David Fischer appealed his convictions on two counts of second degree assault, both of which resulted in extended terms of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the "excited utterance" hearsay exception; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on "extreme indifference to the value of human life;" (4) that the trial court violated his rights against double jeopardy by sentencing him on both second degree assault convictions; (5) the trial court erred in imposing extended prison terms; and (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on unanimously finding "specific bodily injury." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Dupont was convicted by jury of alternative counts of knowing and reckless second-degree murder for the October 2008 stabbing death of his wife. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court erred in failing to specifically describe self-defense as an element of the offense that the State was required to disprove; and (2) the trial court instructed the jury in such a way that the jury could not consider whether he acted in self-defense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dupont " 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

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

Defendant City of Portsmouth (City), appeals a jury verdict awarding $128,111 as just compensation for the defendant’s taking by eminent domain of easement rights in property of plaintiff Houston Holdings, LLC. Defendant challenged the Superior Court’s ruling on a motion in limine and the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict. Finding no error in the Superior Court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Houston Holdings, LLC v. City of Portsmouth" on Justia Law