Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Kevin Guay appealed his convictions for two counts of unlawful operation of a solid waste facility, and one count of unlawful maintenance of a subsurface septic system. Defendant was a land developer and operated a junk removal business. A neighbor called police to report hazardous materials buried on Defendant's property. Department of Environmental Services (DES) investigators unearthed (among other items): a home heating oil tank, carpeting, old mattresses, foam insulation, a metal stove, shingles, wiring, a hot tub broken into pieces, and paint cans; above-the-ground items included mattresses, appliances, chairs, couches, ceiling tiles, a snowmobile, an oil tank, metal debris, and insulation, the majority of which had been exposed to the elements and were not in usable condition. An investigator observed liquid on top of defendant's septic system and a garden hose attached to a sump pump that channeled untreated brown water from the septic tank, bypassing the leach field, and discharging liquid in the direction of the Turkey River. Based on investigators' observations, the State charged defendant with three misdemeanors. After a week-long trial, a jury convicted him on all counts. On appeal, defendant argued that RSA 485-A:37 did not allow the State to charge him with a misdemeanor because the statutory penalty was civil forfeiture. Furthermore, defendant argued he was entitled to a new trial under the plain error doctrine because certain "[i]nadmissible evidence concerning witness credibility was presented at trial and discussed in closing argument." Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's interpretation of RSA 485-A:37, and concluded that in light of other evidence admitted at trial, defendant could not demonstrate that the "inadmissible evidence concerning witness credibility" affected the outcome of his case. Accordingly the Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Guay" on Justia Law

Defendant Robin Lukas appealed a superior court decision that denied her motion to dismiss the indictment against her for theft by unauthorized taking, a class B felony. The only issue on appeal was whether defendant, having been convicted twice of class A misdemeanors in another state, could be charged with a class B in New Hampshire. Defendant argued that her prior out-of-state convictions could not be considered for the purposes of enhancing her New Hampshire conviction. Having reviewed the plain language of the applicable New Hampshire statute, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's interpretation and affirmed the superior court having used the out-of-state convictions to enhance her New Hampshire sentence, and for denying defendant's motion to dismiss. View "New Hampshire v. Lukas" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Blunt appealed a circuit court order that denied his motion to strike the imposition of class A misdemeanor sentences following his conviction of simple assault and resisting arrest. On appeal to the Supreme Court, defendant argued that the trial court's sentences were unlawful because the complaints under which he was convicted alleged only class B misdemeanors. Specifically, he contended that the trial court was required to treat both complaints as alleging class B misdemeanors because: (1) neither complaint alleged a crime that involved as an element an act of violence or a threat of violence; and (2) the State did not file notice of its intent to seek class A penalties on or before the date of his arraignment on a form approved for this purpose by the judicial branch administrative council. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the simple assault complaint nor the resisting arrest complaint required that an act of violence be involved as an element of the offense. Furthermore, the Court held that merely checking the "class A misdemeanor" box on the standard complaint form did not constitute compliance with statute, and that defendant's two convictions were actually class B misdemeanors. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentences imposed and remanded the case back to the district division for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Blunt" on Justia Law

Defendant Ryan Martin appealed a superior court ruling that sentenced him to both a stand-committed prison term of one to three years and probation for two years. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion in the superior court's sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's ultimate sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Mark Case appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to defendant St. Mary's Bank and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment on his claims that the bank engaged in trespass and violated state law and the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The matter arose from the bank's foreclosure on property Plaintiff leased from his landlord, Jean Marcelin. Months before the foreclosure sale, pipes burst in an apartment above plaintiff's, causing a flood. The City of Manchester turned off water and electricity to the building. Plaintiff spoke about the problem to Marcelin, who denied that he still owned the property. Plaintiff then spoke about the problem to a Bank representative; the representative asked plaintiff to allow her, a plumber, and an electrician into the building. The plaintiff complied with this request. The City placed a legal notice on the property’s front door, stating that it was unsafe and prohibiting occupancy. Plaintiff had not resided at the property since the flood, though most of his possessions remained at the property. When the Bank allowed him access to the apartment to remove his possessions, plaintiff observed that his apartment door was "wide open" and subsequently alleged that many of his possessions were missing. Finding no error with the superior court order, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision. View "Case v. St. Mary's Bank " on Justia Law

Defendant Nicholas Trebian was convicted by jury of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of a controlled drug (ecstasy). On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the ecstasy possession charge. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Trebian " on Justia Law

Defendant Amato Russo appealed his conviction by jury on two counts of theft by deception and two alternative counts of theft by unauthorized taking. He argued on appeal that the superior court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and by allowing standby counsel to participate in the trial. Further, he argued that the court erred when it imposed an extended prison term. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "New Hampshire v. Russo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Paul Sangedolce appealed a superior court decision that granted defendant Telegraph Publishing Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, an inmate in state prison, sued the newspaper run by defendant Telegraph for defamation. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that an article written by Andrew Wolfe stated that plaintiff, as an accomplice to Peter Gibbs in a robbery and home invasion, "testified against" Gibbs in Gibbs' trial. In fact, the plaintiff did not testify against Gibbs. The Telegraph moved to dismiss, arguing that the complained-of statement "is not considered defamatory as a matter of law." Plaintiff moved to amend the writ to include a separate cause of action for negligence. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to amend. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the untrue statement that plaintiff testified against his criminal associate could not be reasonably construed as defamatory. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court's reason to dismiss plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, and remanded the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. View "Sanguedolce v. Wolfe " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by jury of attempted kidnapping and attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal of his conviction, he argued that : (1) he was denied a unanimous jury verdict on the attempted aggravated sexual assault charge; and (2) he was entitled to a dismissal of the attempted kidnapping charged based on merger. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's argument that the jury instruction delivered by the trial court allowed the jury to convict him without being unanimous as to the elements constituting attempted AFSA because the two variants of AFSA require different elements. The Court concluded that defendant's attempt to confine his victim was incidental and inseparable from his attempt to commit AFSA. Accordingly, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the kidnapping charged based on merger. View "New Hampshire v. Casanova" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order which granted defendant Patrick Eschenbrenner a new trial on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault based on the court's conclusion that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the State argued that defendant's trial attorneys were not ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony presented at trial, and that no reasonable probability existed that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the trial court excluded the testimony in question. Upon review of the trial court record and the testimony at issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the State's argument, concluding defendant did not suffer actual prejudice at trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's conclusion. View "New Hampshire v. Eschenbrenner" on Justia Law