Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Benjamin Mackenzie was convicted by jury on one count of distribution of a controlled drug — fentanyl — with death resulting. He argued on appeal the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted, as habit evidence under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 406, testimony that the victim had previously purchased opioids from the defendant; and (2) admitted, as “intrinsic” to the charged crime, text messages between a cellphone alleged to belong to the defendant and other apparent drug customers. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Mackenzie" on Justia Law

Defendant Javon Brown was convicted by jury of misdemeanor domestic violence, for which he was sentenced to twelve months in the house of corrections and fined. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by ruling that evidence of a phone call was admissible when the call was not authenticated as required by New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 901. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Parr appealed his conviction following a superior court bench trial on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued the superior court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his felon in possession of a firearm indictment because, in his view, RSA 159:3, I(a) did not prohibit felons from possessing antique pistols and revolvers. Defendant also argued that several provisions of RSA chapter 159 were unconstitutionally vague in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the term “other firearm” in RSA 159:3, I(a) applied to any weapon from which a shot could be discharged by gunpowder, including antique firearms. The Court further concluded RSA 159:3, I(a) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to felons in possession of antique firearms. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Parr" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Dana was convicted by jury of first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence, and by failing to give the false-exculpatory-statement jury instruction that the defendant requested. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Dana" on Justia Law

The State of New Hampshire petitioned in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for review of certain protective orders against defendants Nicholas Fuchs, Jacob Johnson, and Jeffrey Hallock-Saucier. This petition for arose from three separate criminal cases, each against one of the defendants. In each case, the State determined that it was required to provide the defendant with information from one or more police officer’s personnel files because the information was potentially exculpatory. Citing the court’s authority under New Hampshire Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(8), the State filed a motion for a protective order of discovery materials in each case, seeking an order that would prohibit “Defense Counsel . . . from sharing or further disseminating these confidential documents and the confidential information contained therein with anyone other than Defense Counsel’s staff and the Defendant.” Counsel for each defendant assented to the proposed protective order appended to the State’s motion although, after the court denied those motions, Johnson filed a notice that “he no longer assents to the State’s motions for protective orders.” In the cases against Fuchs and Johnson, the court denied the motions, by margin order, without prejudice. In each case, the court opined that the material may constitute public records subject to disclosure under the Right- to-Know Law unless, for specific or particularized reasons, their disclosure would result in an invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its interpretation of RSA 105:13-b. The Court also concluded the trial court erred in failing to find good cause for the issuance of protective orders in these cases. Given the confidentiality accorded police personnel files by RSA 105:13-b, the Supreme Court held the State has shown good cause, as a matter of law, for the issuance of protective orders in the cases at issue here. View "Petition of the State of New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant Justin Gunnip was convicted by jury on one count of falsifying physical evidence, and one count of conspiracy to commit assault. In August 2019, defendant was an inmate at the Sullivan County House of Corrections. On August 17, 2019, another inmate at the facility was assaulted. The room in which the assault occurred was monitored by surveillance cameras capable of capturing video footage of the entire room. The digital recording was saved to a server, which was inaccessible to inmates. The footage from the day of the assault showed the victim sitting on a bench watching television when defendant and several other inmates entered the room. Defendant approached one of the cameras and held paper in front of the lens, obstructing the camera’s view of the room. When defendant removed the paper, the victim was injured and lying on the floor. The State appealed the trial court’s order setting aside defendant’s falsifying physical evidence conviction, arguing the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that defendant did not violate RSA 641:6, I, when he held the paper in front of the camera. In reaching its decision, the trial court interpreted the word “thing” in RSA 641:6, I, as synonymous with “physical evidence” and determined that, under the statute, the “thing” at issue “must exist” in order for the defendant to falsify it. Concluding that the “thing” at issue here was “the recording maintained on the server in the facility’s data room,” the court further determined that “[t]here was no evidence the recording was altered and, in fact, the State used [the recording] as an exhibit to prove [defendant’s] role as a conspirator precisely because it accurately portrayed his conduct in connection with the assault.” Thus, the court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed the recording in violation of the statute. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gunnip" on Justia Law

Defendant Keith Fitzgerald appealed a superior court order sentencing him, on remand, to nine and one-half to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court: (1) unsustainably exercised its discretion and committed an error of law by re-imposing the same sentence that it had imposed previously; and (2) violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by relying upon improper information and failing to set forth, in detail, the basis for its sentencing decision. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

Defendant Brandon Griffin was convicted by jury of being a drug enterprise leader (DEL). On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motions to dismiss the DEL charge for: (1) lack of a speedy trial; and (2) violating his right to due process of law as set forth in New Hampshire v. Lordan, 116 N.H. 479 (1976). After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated because defendant acquiesced to the majority of the delay and suffered no identifiable prejudice. Furthermore, the Court concluded defendant’s due process rights were not violated because the Court's holding in Lordan did not apply to the State’s DEL prosecution of defendant. View "New Hampshire v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Defendant Daswan Jette appealed his conviction by jury on one count of reckless manslaughter. Defendant argued the trial court: (1) erred by excluding evidence that, more than one month before her death, the victim sold drugs to an individual who paid her with counterfeit money; and (2) may have erred by failing to order the disclosure of certain records submitted for in camera review. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that, even if the victim’s prior drug sale was relevant to defendant’s self-defense claim, the trial court properly excluded evidence of the previous sale pursuant to New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err by withholding certain records that it reviewed in camera. View "New Hampshire v. Jette" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU) and the Concord Monitor, appealed a superior court order which ruled that portions of a contract between an equipment vendor and defendant City of Concord, for the purchase of “covert communications equipment,” were exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. Plaintiffs argued the City failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that redacted portions of the contract were exempt from disclosure, and that the trial court erred when it held an ex parte in camera hearing, during which the City presented evidence supporting exemption. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the superior court did not err when it conducted the hearing, and that it properly determined that most of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure. However, the Court also concluded that it erred by not disclosing one provision of the agreement. That provision was ordered disclosed on remand. View "American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire & a. v. City of Concord" on Justia Law