Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Carley Williams appealed a circuit court decision to impose a portion of her suspended sentence. In 2016, defendant reported to police that a customer at work had exposed himself to her. This report was false, and, in 2017, she pleaded guilty to unsworn falsification and making a false report to law enforcement. For these offenses, the defendant received a 12-month correctional sentence, deferred for one year on the condition of good behavior, and then suspended for one year on the same terms. In April 2019, defendant was arrested for theft by unauthorized taking. She was later convicted on this charge, and there was no dispute that her conviction violated the terms of her suspended sentence. In June 2019, the State moved to impose the 12-month suspended sentence. At a November hearing on the motion, defendant claimed to be her brother’s primary caretaker and argued that imposition of the 12-month suspended sentence would deprive him of necessary care. As a result, the trial court imposed only 10 days of the 12-month sentence. The State moved to reconsider that decision, arguing that defendant had lied to the court about the extent of her brother’s medical problems and her role caring for him. Defendant subsequently filed a police report claiming that, on November 4, M.P., the daughter of her brother’s girlfriend, had stolen from her. Later, defendant called the Milford Police Department, posing as M.P., and asked whether there was a warrant for M.P.’s arrest. In February 2020, the State filed a second motion to impose, asserting that defendant committed identity fraud by “posing as another individual in an attempt to obtain confidential information.” Following a multi-day, in-person, evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found defendant violated the suspended sentence’s condition of good behavior, in part, by committing identity fraud, and that the violation warranted imposing “a reasonable portion of the suspended sentence.” On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by finding that she committed identity fraud and by holding the hearing telephonically, at which it imposed 70 days (less 10 days of time served) of the 12-month suspended sentence. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Roy appealed his convictions after a jury found him guilty on one count of felony domestic violence–criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, and four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence–simple assault. On appeal, defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to convict him of felony domestic violence, and that the trial court erred by precluding him from questioning the victim about sexually explicit text messages and by redacting the sexually explicit content from the messages before publishing them to the jury. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Roy" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Davis appealed his conviction for one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, challenging a superior court order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into the enclosed porch of his residence and subsequent warrantless entry into the interior. He also argued the trial court erred when it did not suppress evidence seized during a subsequent search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant was predicated upon evidence obtained during the two prior unlawful intrusions. The State contended that both entries were lawful and, therefore, the later warrant search of the defendant’s residence was also lawful. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with defendant that the evidence obtained during the two warrantless entries was unlawfully acquired, and that the search warrant’s reliance on that evidence renders it invalid, it reversed and remanded. View "New Hampshire v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Boulton was convicted by jury on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one count of misdemeanor sexual assault. HE argued on appeal that the Superior Court erred by: (1) denying his request to enter portions of the transcript of his interview with police into the record; and (2) allowing a witness for the State to offer expert testimony while testifying as a lay witness. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Boulton" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Gedney was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and the Superior Court ordered him to make restitution of up to $10,000 for counseling to the victims. Defendant argued that the trial court erred because the State failed to prove that his acts directly caused the victims to seek counseling. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gedney" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Clark was convicted by jury on five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA), one count of attempted AFSA, and one count of felonious sexual assault. Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of: (1) a victim’s change in gender identity after the sexual assaults were disclosed; and (2) defendant’s display of pornographic images to his minor nephews around the time of the sexual assaults. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly addressed evidence of the victim’s change in gender identity through voir dire and subsequent jury instructions. The Court also concluded that evidence that the defendant displayed pornographic images to his minor nephews was admissible to corroborate the victim’s testimony. Further, given the evidence describing the nature of the assaults, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Lastly, defendant asked the Supreme Court to review the Superior Court’s decision to withhold some of the confidential records provided for in camera review. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in New Hampshire v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (2020), when it conducted its in camera review, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of reviewing the withheld confidential records in accordance with the standard set forth in Girard. View "New Hampshire v. Clark" on Justia Law

The State appealed a circuit court order granting defendant David Almeida's motion to suppress the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The issue this appeal presented for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's review centered on whether the performance of a BAC test on a blood sample, which was drawn by the State with defendant’s valid consent, constituted a search within the meaning of Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Supreme Court concluded that it was not a search, judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the State contended defendant lacked a subjective expectation of privacy in his BAC because he voluntarily gave a blood sample to the State, and that he lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his BAC because of the reduced expectation of privacy an individual has while driving. The defendant countered that the BAC test was a search because he had “a significant privacy interest in his blood,” which contains a “vast amount of personal information” including genetic predispositions, family connections, and private medical facts. The Supreme Court agreed with the State. View "New Hampshire v. Almeida" on Justia Law

Petitioners Whitman Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Camp Walt Whitman, Wicosuta Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Camp Wicosuta, and Winaukee Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Camp Winaukee (collectively, the Camps), challenged a decision of respondent the Governor’s Office for Emergency Relief and Recovery (the Office for Emergency Relief), to deny their applications for money from the New Hampshire General Assistance and Preservation (GAP) Fund. In July 2020, the Governor authorized the allocation and expenditure of $30 million of CARES Act funds for the GAP Fund “to provide emergency financial relief to New Hampshire businesses and nonprofit organizations impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Camps applied for GAP funding at the end of July 2020. Their applications were denied on September 10, 2020. The form letters notifying the Camps that their applications had been denied stated that “having high liquid assets both personal and business” was one of “[t]he most common reasons” for denying an application. The Camps argued: (1) denying their applications violated their state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection; and (2) the Office for Emergency Relief’s decision deprived them of their state and federal rights to procedural and substantive due process. Finding no deprivation of petitioners' rights, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the Office for Emergency Relief. View "Petition of Whitman Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Camp Walt Whitman et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Elizabeth Seibel appealed after she was convicted at a superior court bench trial on one count of financial exploitation of an elderly person, and two counts of theft by unauthorized taking. The victim was defendant's widowed mother-in-law. Defendant and the victim's son added their names to one of the victim's checking accounts without her knowledge. Defendant and the son withdrew money, and used the victim's funds to purchase a house and pay personal debts. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on all three convictions. Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support each of the defendant’s convictions, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Seibel" on Justia Law

Defendant Volodymyr Zhukovskyy appealed a superior court order denying his third motion for an evidentiary bail hearing. Because it concluded that RSA 597:2, III-IV did not require the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing when the parties disputed facts relevant to dangerousness, and that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Zhukovskyy" on Justia Law