Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal of a superior court order denying the State's request to compel Defendant Gary E. Marchand, to undergo a psychological evaluation by the State's expert. There were two issues presented to the Court: (1) does the right against self-incrimination prevent the State from compelling a defendant to undergo a psychological or psychiatric examination when he raises an insanity defense; and (2) if such examinations may be compelled, what procedures should trial courts use when ordering them? The Court answered the first question in the negative, and provide a procedural framework for courts to follow. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Petitioners Professional Fire Fighters of Wolfeboro, IAFF Local 3708, president of the union and several firefighters appealed a superior court order that dismissed their suit against Respondent Town of Wolfeboro. The suit arose from the parties' negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union had ever been certified by the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) as a bargaining unit. In July 2010, the parties met and agreed on ground rules governing the conduct of their future negotiations, including that "[a]fter October 1, 2010, either party [could] request mediation of the outstanding issues." Shortly thereafter, however, the negotiations broke down. At an August 2010 meeting, the Town's Board of Selectmen voted to rescind its recognition of the Union. The petitioners filed a verified petition for an ex parte temporary restraining order against the Town and requested temporary and permanent injunctive relief. After a hearing, the trial court granted the petitioners' requested temporary restraining order, and scheduled the matter for further hearing. The Town moved to dismiss the entire proceeding. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Town's motion and vacated its temporary restraining order. The petitioners unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the portion of RSA 31:3 which grants municipalities the right to recognize unions and enter into collective bargaining agreements was superseded by the enactment of the PELRA, and, therefore, the Town had no authority to recognize the non-PELRB-certified Union. Accordingly, the agreement, as well as the subsequent agreements, were ultra vires contracts and wholly void. The Court affirmed the superior court's decision to dismiss Petitioners' case.

Appellant Pasquale Franchi appealed a superior court order that denied his motion in limine to preclude certain expert testimony. This case arose from an eminent domain proceeding. There was no dispute that there was a taking of Appellant's property, and that he was entitled to compensation. Rather, Appellant contended that certain errors made both before and at trial required the Supreme Court's review of the compensation he was due. Several of Appellant's challenges pertained to testimony of the State's expert, a certified commercial property appraiser. Appellant moved in limine to exclude the appraiser's testimony, arguing that pursuant to New Hampshire's rules of procedure, the second of the appraiser's reports was irrelevant and did not meet the threshold of reliability. Upon review of the issues Appellant raised on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court made no errors in its holding, and accordingly affirmed.

Defendant William Town was convicted after a jury trial of one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault which occurred sometime between 1990 and 1992. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude a juror and by allowing the victim to testify about certain statements Defendant made. Furthermore, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after testimony suggestive of uncharged acts of sexual misconduct and by providing a deadlock jury instruction after twice learning of the jury's split. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed with regard to the disqualification of a juror, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Respondent Steven Regan (father) appealed an order recommended by a Marital Master (and approved by the circuit court) that among other things: (1) declined to modify his obligations to carry life insurance and pay half of his minor daughter's uninsured medical expenses even though paying these amounts reduced his monthly income below the statutory self-support reserve; and (2) required him to exchange custody of his daughter at a police station, rather than at the parties' homes. Although the court found that the father's reduction in income required reducing his child support obligation, it found "no basis to modify" the father's obligation to pay for half of his daughter's orthodontic expenses, and similarly declined to reduce the amount of life insurance he was obliged to carry. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that payment of the daughter's uninsured medical expenses necessarily reduced the father's income below the self-support reserve and therefore, the trial court's order insofar as it required such payments, erred by ordering the father pay. With regard to the life insurance, because the parties stipulated that the payments were not child support, the trial court "sustainably exercised" its discretion in finding that the monthly insurance payment would not unduly burden the father's ability to support himself. Furthermore, with regard to the custody exchange: the Court concluded that making the exchange at a police station was in the daughter's best interest.

Respondent City of Concord appealed a superior court order that denied it summary judgment in favor of Petitioner EnergyNorth National Gas (d/b/a National Grid NH, or "National Grid"). The City argued that the trial court erroneously determined that RSA 231:185 (2009) and RSA 236:11 (2009) preempted the City's ordinance authorizing it to charge certain roadway fees. The issue between the parties arose from National Grid's desire to excavate certain streets to install, maintain or replace its underground pipes that delivered natural gas. The fees covered damage for damages arising from the excavation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that granting summary judgment in favor of National Grid was in error. The City argued that its roadway fees are consistent with the pertinent statutes because they "cover[ ] maintenance costs to repair the roadway after it has been initially patched, which [are] used to restore the excavated roadway to the condition that existed prior to the excavation." The Court was not persuaded that when the legislature enacted the statutes at issue, it made any assumption or finding, implied or otherwise, as to whether repaving a paved excavated roadway restored the roadway's original life expectancy. The Court was thus left with a factual dispute whether patching an excavated roadway with new pavement diminished or restored its original life expectancy. Because of that "genuine issue of material fact," the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case came before the Supreme Court from an interlocutory transfer without ruling from the superior court on the following question: "Does the Due Process Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution (Part I, Articles 2 and 15) or the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution require the appointment of counsel for an indigent parent from whom the State seeks to take custody of a minor child based on allegations of neglect or abuse?" Parents Larry and Sonia M. were served with petitions by which the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) sought custody of their two minor children C.M and A.M. DCYF alleged that the parents were neglecting their children by failing to provide a safe and sanitary home and adequate supervision and by exposing them to domestic violence in the form of threatening and intimidating behaviors by the father. An adjudicatory hearing was held at which the parents were represented by appointed counsel. The court issued an order maintaining legal custody of the children with DCYF and directing the parents to undertake certain measures before the children might be safely returned to them. Each parent filed an appeal to superior court contending that without appointed counsel, their protected liberty interest in raising their children was threatened. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that while due process did not require that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in every proceeding (such as the proceeding at issue in this case), a determination of whether appointed counsel is necessary to adequately reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation should be made on a case-by-case basis in the first instance by the trial court. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the superior court to make that determination.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order entered by the United States Supreme Court vacating the judgment in "New Hampshire v. Dilboy," (160 N.H. 135 (2010)) (Dilboy I), and remanding for further consideration in light of "Bullcoming v. New Mexico," (131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011)). On remand, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reconsidered only its holding on the Confrontation Clause issue. As to the other five issues, the Court's prior decision in Dilboy I remained unchanged. In Dilboy I, the Court affirmed the conviction of Defendant Anthony Dilboy, on two counts of manslaughter and two alternative counts of negligent homicide. The relevant issue before the Court in Dilboy I was whether the admission of certain evidence at trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On appeal in Dilboy I, Defendant did not challenge the admission of certain blood evidence on "transmittal slips." Rather, he contended that the trial court erred in ruling that the blood test results were non-testimonial, and, accordingly, that an expert's testimony at trial about the test results violated the Confrontation Clause. In its reconsideration, the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that though the transmittal slips were admitted into evidence, the Court declined to address Defendant’s Confrontation Clause arguments because Defendant did not address the issue in his brief in Dilboy I. "Indeed, the defendant did not even brief the issue after the Supreme Court vacated Dilboy I, but rather raises the issue for the first time in a supplemental brief filed in response to an order issued by this court." After reconsidering its decision in light of "Bullcoming" and thoroughly reviewing the record, the Court affirmed its prior holding.

Plaintiff Phaneuf Funeral Home appealed a superior court order that granted motions for summary judgment in favor of Defendants Little Giant Pump Company, Boyer Interior Design, Leviton Manufacturing Company and The Elegant Earth, Inc. Phaneuf hired Boyer to do interior design and light renovation work in the basement and adjacent hallway of the funeral home. In the hallway, Boyer installed a wall-mounted water fountain that it purchased from Elegant, an Alabama-based household goods retailer. Defendant Leviton supplied the fountain’s power cord to Little Giant, which manufactured the fountain. A fire broke out at the funeral home. Alleging that the water fountain’s defective pump and power cord caused the fire, Phaneuf brought negligence and strict product liability claims against each defendant, although it later withdrew its negligence claim against Boyer. Each defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Phaneuf’s claims were time-barred by RSA 508:4-b, I (2010), the statute of repose for “Damages From Construction.” The superior court agreed, and granted each motion. Upon review of the facts in the superior court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to Boyer, but reversed as to the remaining defendants. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Consolidated cases were brought before the Supreme Court on interlocutory transfer without a ruling from the superior court. Petitioners are New Hampshire voters and the towns and municipalities in which some of them live. They sought a declaration that Laws 2012 Chapter 9 violated the State Constitution. After thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court determined that the petitioners did not meet their burden of proving that the redistricting plan in Laws 2012 Chapter 9 violated the State Constitution, therefore, they were not entitled to the declaration they sought.