Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant William Ploof appealed a superior court order that committed him to the custody of the state Department of Corrections as a sexually violent predator. He argued on appeal that on its face, the statute under which he was committed violated his right to procedural due process, the state constitution's separation of powers provision, and his right to equal protection. Following a seven-day trial, the jury unanimously found that Defendant was a sexually violent predator and the trial court entered an order committing him to the custody of the department of corrections for a period of five years. Upon careful review of the process by which the state commits persons as a sexually violent predator, the governing statute and the pertinent case law, the Supreme Court remained unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments, and affirmed the superior court order.

After a jury trial, Defendant Horace King was convicted on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his supplemental motion for in camera review of the victim's medical and counseling records. The trial court found that Defendant "failed to articulate how the requested medical records would be material to his defense." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's record did not support its conclusion that the records were not material to Defendant's defense: "Defendant presented specific arguments to carry his burden... [the victim's] prior false allegation of sexual assault, her 'tendency to lie,' and the potential effects her ADD and ODD medical and counseling records may have on her competency as a witness." The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Timothy Gingras was convicted of reckless conduct, criminal threatening and criminal mischief following a jury trial in superior court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he challenged only the criminal threatening and reckless conduct convictions, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions as to those charges, and that the court failed to give his proposed self-defense instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that reversal was warranted due to the trial court's failure to give a complete jury instruction pertaining to the definition of "deadly force" on his self-defense claim. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for a new trial.

Defendant Nicholas Gardner pled guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI). On the date of the offense, he was nineteen years old. As part of his sentence, Defendant requested that his driver's license be revoked for twelve months but that he be allowed to seek suspension of six months of the revocation period provided he entered an impaired driver intervention program within 45 days of his conviction. The court denied Defendant's request, ruling that it did not have the authority to impose such a sentence. Upon careful review of the applicable legislative and legal authority, the Supreme Court agreed that the trial court did not have the requisite authority to impose Defendant's proposed sentence, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Defendant New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) appealed a superior court decision that ordered it to disclose certain retiree benefit records requested by Plaintiff Union Leader Corporation under the state Right-to-Know Law. A Union Leader reporter requested that NHRS provide a list of retirement system members who received the highest annual pension payments for the 2009 calendar year. NHRS denied the request, but offered to provide a list of all state annuities ranked from highest to lowest. Union Leader thereafter filed suit requesting the list. On appeal, NHRS argued that the trial court erred in: (1) concluding that the plain language of the Right-to-Know Law (RSA 91-A:4, I-a) required disclosure of the requested records; (2) finding RSA 91-A:4, I-a unambiguous and therefore failing to consult legislative history; (3) failing to recognize the privacy interest at stake in disclosing retirees' names and annuity amounts; and (4) failing to assess the public's interest in disclosure and balance it against NHRS's interest in nondisclosure and the retirees' privacy interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that RSA 91-A:4, I-a did not compel disclosure of the records at issue, but that the records were subject to disclosure under the general mandate of RSA 91-A:4 and Article 8 of the state constitution. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision ordering disclosure of the records in Union Leader's request.

Defendant Jeffrey Marshall appealed his convictions on drug trafficking and theft charges. In 2007, Anthony Fosher was watching a Red Sox game at a local hotel with some friends. Some of the adults were drinking. At some point in the evening, Fosher asked whether anyone could get cocaine for him. Defendant made some calls in an effort to get the cocaine; Fosher gave him some money. Defendant left to make the purchase, but finding no cocaine, substituted heroin instead. Fosher consumed almost all of the heroin Defendant bought for him and later died at the hotel. Defendant's girlfriend called 911, took money out of Fosher's pocket and gave it to Defendant, who also took the remaining heroin before police and paramedics arrived. Police arrested Defendant three days later. Subsequent to a jury finding him guilty on both charges, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to set aside the verdict, arguing an insufficiency of the evidence, and arguing that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence as to causation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the trial court record contained evidence sufficient to support his conviction, and affirmed the jury verdict against him.

Defendant George Quintero appealed his convictions on one count of felonious sexual assault (FSA), and one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA). He argued that the Superior Court erred when it conditioned the giving of a so-called "Williams instruction" (137 N.H. 343 (1993) (requiring the State to prove the charged acts occurred in the time frame alleged in the indictments)) on his agreeing to an amendment of the indictments to conform to the evidence presented at trial. After oral argument, the Supreme Court directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing on whether "Williams" should be overruled. The Court took the arguments under advisement, and affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the Williams instruction should no longer be given in cases tried after the date of this opinion.

Defendant John Stowe appealed his convictions of making a false report to law enforcement and of unsworn falsification, arguing that the Superior Court erred when it: (1) limited his cross-examination of a crucial State witness; (2) denied his request for a curative instruction on the State's misstatements of law made during closing argument; and (3) denied his motion to dismiss the unsworn falsification complaint. In 2005, John Deere Company was authorized to repossess a tractor that Defendant had financed through it. John Deere was unsuccessful because the tractor was not at the expected location. Defendant claimed that he did not know what happened to the tractor. During a subsequent court hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to file a police report indicating that the tractor had been stolen. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented against Defendant at trial was sufficient to support his convictions.

Defendant Robert Burke appealed a trial court's decision to deny his motion to dismiss criminal restraint charges against him. On the morning of February 2, 2009, eighty-three-year-old Monna Greenstreet was home alone when she saw Defendant standing in the area between her kitchen and family room. He was holding a knife and demanded $75,000, which he claimed her husband had hidden in the house. Defendant was subsequently charged with burglary, robbery, theft by unauthorized taking, criminal restraint, and obstructing the report of a crime. At the close of the State's case, Defendant moved to dismiss all of the charges. With respect to the criminal restraint charge, he argued that the State had failed to prove that Greenstreet was exposed to "risk of serious bodily injury." Upon review, the Supreme Court held: "[a]lthough we consider this a close case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that [the evidence] was sufficient to establish a risk of serious bodily injury." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Robinson Garcia was certified as an adult and convicted of one count of second-degree murder and one count of riot. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erroneously: (1) denied his motions to suppress; (2) excluded the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) prohibited him from testifying about statements made by the victim. Defendant's convictions arose out of the August 11, 2005 beating of Stephen Raymond in Manchester. After Raymond's death, Defendant was charged with second-degree murder. Defendant was also charged with three alternative theories of felony-level riot, alleging that he assembled with others with the purpose of causing Raymond to suffer serious injuries. The trial court made a number of rulings unfavorable to Defendant. Defendant appealed those rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented at trial supported his convictions, and affirmed the trial court's decisions in his case.