Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Meghan Sage appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred by: (1) denying her motion to suppress evidence derived from expansion of the underlying traffic stop; (2) declining to exclude breathalyzer test results, or alternatively dismiss her charge, for an alleged violation of her due process rights under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution; and (3) enhancing her sentence under RSA 265-A:18, IV based upon a 2008 conviction from Maine for operating under the influence (OUI). Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Sage" on Justia Law

Defendant Felix Ruiz was convicted by jury of misdemeanor receipt of stolen property; namely, a United States passport belonging to someone else. Defendant was suspected of helping others forge identity papers for others. The defendant told a New Hampshire State Trooper that he was paid to perform “backgrounds” on individuals and that the information he obtained was then given to someone else who would generate the false identity documents. During an interview with policy, defendant was “extremely cooperative” with and “polite” to the troopers. As a result, officers offered to release him provided that he produce the minimum amount of cash bail for a misdemeanor charge. The defendant had no cash available, but claimed that his girlfriend could bring it. The troopers allowed him to text his girlfriend, who agreed to come to the DMV with the money. However, the girlfriend never arrived and, after a few hours of waiting, the police decided to transport the defendant to jail and allow his girlfriend to meet him there. Police asked defendant if he would consent to a search of his vehicle. Defendant readily agreed, signing a handwritten consent form that the officer drafted. Police conducted a full search of the vehicle, during which he found a black bag containing, among other items, the passport at issue in this case. On appeal of his eventual conviction, defendant argued the Superior Court erred when it: (1) denied his motion to suppress certain evidence, including his post-Miranda confession; and (2) denied his motion to dismiss based upon insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

Defendant Gedeon Karasi appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder, first degree assault, armed robbery, and resisting arrest or detention. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the attempted murder charge because the evidence was insufficient to prove a purpose to kill, and that it committed plain error by allocating all of the defendant’s presentence confinement credit to his misdemeanor sentence. The State agreed the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant and that defendant should have been resentenced. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction, vacated the sentences imposed, and remanded for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Karasi" on Justia Law

Defendant Gedeon Karasi appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder, first degree assault, armed robbery, and resisting arrest or detention. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the attempted murder charge because the evidence was insufficient to prove a purpose to kill, and that it committed plain error by allocating all of the defendant’s presentence confinement credit to his misdemeanor sentence. The State agreed the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant and that defendant should have been resentenced. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction, vacated the sentences imposed, and remanded for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Karasi" on Justia Law

Respondent Patrick Roland appealed a New Hampshire Department of Safety (Department) decision requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device in his vehicle as a condition of restoration of his driver’s license. He pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI, after which his license was revoked for two years, retroactive to April 2016. In July 2016, the Department issued a notice of hearing to review respondent’s driving record. Review of respondent’s driving history had revealed that he had multiple DWI convictions. Roland argued on appeal: (1) the findings of fact in the hearing examiner’s initial report were insufficient to support the hearing examiner’s determination that “the safety of [Roland] and of other users of the highway would be enhanced” by the installation of a device; and (2) the issue of whether to require the installation of an interlock device was not “ripe” for consideration, and therefore his request for a new hearing should not have been denied. To the latter point, respondent contended a hearing “should properly be performed closer in time to when [he] will actually be eligible for restoration of his driver’s license,” and that a later hearing would provide him with an “opportunity to submit evidence that could assist in demonstrating, and even establishing, that he will not pose a danger to himself or others.” Finding the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Department’s decision to require the device, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. The Court did not reach respondent’s second issue. View "Appeal of Patrick Roland" on Justia Law

Defendant Theo Bosa appealed an order granting him 123 days of presentence confinement credit. On appeal, defendant argued that the superior court erred in awarding him only 123 days of presentence confinement credit, instead of the full 243 days he requested. Finding no error in calculation of his sentence, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Bosa" on Justia Law

Defendant Carlos Gonzalez, III appealed his convictions on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, arguing the trial court erred when it vacated the pro hac vice admission of two out-of-state attorneys, thereby depriving him of his right to chosen counsel under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court conclude the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion when it found that its interest in the fair, efficient, and orderly administration of justice outweighed the defendant’s right to counsel of his choice, it affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendants Anthony Barnaby and David Caplin were charged with two counts each of first degree and second degree murder in the deaths of two women that occurred in 1988. The State appealed a superior court order that denied in part, its motion to depose certain foreign witnesses pursuant to RSA 517:13 (2007). In 2010, the State reopened its investigation into the murders. As a result of that investigation, a grand jury indicted the defendants on the present charges in 2015. In April 2016, the State moved, pursuant to RSA 517:13, to take video depositions of eleven Canadian residents for potential use at the defendants’ trials. The State maintained that the prospective deponents were material witnesses who could not be compelled to testify at trial and, therefore, video depositions are necessary “to preserve their testimony and ensure a fair trial.” The defendants objected. The court found the State had met its burden of proving that the depositions of one witness in Caplin’s case and one witness in Barnaby’s case were necessary, but that it had failed to demonstrate a necessity for the other depositions. On appeal, the State argued the trial court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the State had met its burden to take the depositions under RSA 517:13, II(a). The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that whether a witness resides in a foreign country and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire courts is a factor that can be considered when determining whether a deposition is necessary to preserve the testimony of a witness who is unlikely to be available for trial due to one of the enumerated conditions in RSA 517:13, II(a). Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of RSA 517:13, II(a) and it was not clear what weight, if any, that the trial court placed upon the fact that these witnesses were not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire courts, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for consideration of whether the State met its burden pursuant to RSA 517:13, II(a). View "New Hampshire v. Barnaby" on Justia Law

Jeremy Fiske was convicted on eight counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one count of possessing child pornography. He appealed, arguing the superior court erred by: (1) denying his motion for in camera review of the counseling records of the victim; (2) allowing the State to present evidence that he admitted to having “perversion addictions”; (3) denying his motion to dismiss the child pornography indictment; and (4) informing the jury that certain indictments alleged alternative means of committing the same offense but then imposing separate sentences on each of the alternative charges. Finding no error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Fiske" on Justia Law

Defendant Andrew Robbins appealed his conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a deadly weapon. Upon approaching the vehicle, police immediately recognized three of the four occupants from prior traffic stops. Several of the occupants were known members of a national criminal street gang. Checking for outstanding warrants, the officer found one against defendant. Concerned for his safety, the officer asked defendant to step out of the car and informed defendant of the outstanding warrant. Defendant was placed under arrest; a subsequent search netted a knife in defendant’s right front pocket. On appeal of the subsequent charges and conviction, defendant argued the superior court erred in denying his motion to suppress the knife: the officer unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop by questioning him and conducting a warrant check. Defendant maintains this unjustified expansion of the scope of the traffic stop violated his rights. The New Hampshire found no error in the superior court’s judgment and affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Robbins" on Justia Law