Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant William Edic appealed his conviction by jury on one count of second degree murder and one count of falsifying physical evidence. On appeal, defendant challenged various evidentiary rulings made at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Edic" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial based upon stipulated facts, defendant Sean McInnis was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled drug. On appeal, he challenged his convictions, arguing that the Superior Court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. After review of the record and finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. McInnis" on Justia Law

Defendant Seth Mazzaglia appealed after he was convicted by jury of first degree murder. The central disputed issue at trial concerned the circumstances of the victim’s death. The State contended that defendant, enraged by the victim’s refusal to participate in a sexual encounter with him and his girlfriend, attacked the victim from behind while she was watching a movie, strangling her with a rope. The State further asserted that, after the victim had died, defendant sexually assaulted her. By contrast, the defense theory contended the victim died during a consensual sexual encounter with defendant and his girlfriend. According to that theory, the victim allowed defendant and his girlfriend to put a “harness” around her and then had consensual sexual intercourse with defendant, while his girlfriend accidentally smothered her. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it excluded evidence alleging that the victim had expressed to her prior partners an interest in bondage-related sexual activities. Finding no reversible error from the trial court’s exclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Mazzaglia" on Justia Law

Defendant Jamie Letarte appealed after he was convicted by jury on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one count of felony indecent exposure. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred when it precluded him from introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach the victim’s testimony on a collateral matter during her cross-examination by defense counsel, and when it denied his motion to vacate the verdict and schedule a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Letarte" on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Milton was convicted by jury on one count of second degree murder, one count of assault by a prisoner, and one count of falsifying physical evidence. The charges against defendant stemmed from a 2010 incident at the State Prison in which both defendant and the victim were incarcerated. Defendant was a member of a prison gang, the leader of which instructed defendant to assault the victim. The victim died from multiple blows to the head. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to properly limit the introduction of evidence relating to his alleged membership in the prison gang. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Milton" on Justia Law

Defendant Amadou Diallo appealed the extended term of imprisonment imposed by the Superior Court after his conviction for felonious sexual assault. He argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the State provided sufficient notice of its intent to seek an extended sentence, and because of that lack of notice, he asked the Supreme Court to vacate his sentence and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. Finding no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Supreme Court denied his request and affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Diallo" on Justia Law

Appellants N.C. and Alethea Young, Ph.D., appealed superior court orders denying Dr. Young’s motion to quash a subpoena for N.C.’s psychological records issued by appellee, the New Hampshire Board of Psychologists (Board), and dismissing N.C.’s petition for a declaratory judgment to prevent the Board from obtaining the records. N.C. has been a patient of Young for many years, attending at least two therapy sessions per week since the age of two. In August 2013, when N.C. was still a minor, she informed Young that her father, S.C., had physically and emotionally abused her. According to Young, throughout her treatment of N.C., she witnessed what she described as S.C.’s aggressive and humiliating treatment of his daughter, both in public as well as in therapy sessions. In September, S.C. filed a written complaint against Young with the Board. The complaint alleged that Young had breached her professional obligations by: (1) becoming personally over-involved with N.C., thus sacrificing her objectivity; (2) providing counseling to both S.C. and his daughter, thus creating an insurmountable conflict of interest; (3) violating RSA 169-C:29 (2014) by failing to timely report suspected abuse of a child to DCYF; (4) violating RSA 633:1, I-a (2007) and 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (2012) by detaining and concealing N.C., who was a minor at the time, from S.C. when she drove N.C. to Vermont without S.C.’s knowledge or consent; and (5) failing to respect S.C.’s wishes that she no longer treat his daughter. On appeal, appellants argued that the trial court erred in enforcing the subpoena because the Board failed to establish that it had just cause to issue the subpoena. Appellants also contended that, even if just cause existed to issue the subpoena, once they objected, the subpoena could not be enforced by the court because the Board failed to sustain what, in their view, was the additional burden necessary to pierce the patient’s privilege by showing that there was a reasonable probability the records were relevant and material and that the Board had an essential need for them. Furthermore, appellants argued that, even if the Board met the burden necessary to pierce the privilege, the court erred in not conducting an in camera review of the records before ordering compliance with the subpoena in order to limit the scope of disclosure. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with appellants that the statute required a court order to obtain a patient’s records when there was an objection to compliance with a subpoena based upon a claim of privilege. However, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that, under the circumstances of this case, the privilege must yield to the Board’s proper exercise of its regulatory responsibilities with regard to its licensee, Dr. Young. View "N.C. v. New Hampshire Board of Psychologists" on Justia Law

Defendant David Aldrich appealed after a jury convicted him on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. Defendant argued the trial court erred by preventing him from cross-examining the victim about three of four allegedly false allegations of sexual assault that she had made against other men. He also challenged the court’s failure to disclose material following an in camera review. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Aldrich" on Justia Law

Defendant Terry Adams, Jr. appealed his convictions of reckless conduct, and simple assault. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by: (1) recalling the jury to correct an error in the verdict on the reckless conduct charge; (2) denying his motion to introduce exculpatory evidence at trial; and (3) prohibiting him from introducing evidence of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Adams" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault. Before trial, he filed a motion asking the trial court to order, among other things, “the State to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve all cell phone activity of [complainant] including voice mails, text messaging, e-mails, social media postings and photographs by making a mirror image of all cell phones utilized by [complainant].” Defendant also requested that the court order the State to “mak[e] immediate preservation and production requests of all service providers including, but not limited to cell phone[] carriers, Facebook and any other social media or communication provider with which [the complainant] had an account.” The State objected, arguing, among other things, that “[d]efendants generally do not have the legal authority to direct an investigation or demand that the State investigate, obtain, and preserve specific evidence.” Defendant responded in his motion that he was “not seeking discovery . . . but rather the preservation of” the records and communications. At the time the defendant filed his motion, the State did not possess any of the records or communications that defendant was seeking. The trial court granted defendant's proposed order, which compelled the State to obtain and produce the records for in camera inspection. The State appealed when its motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there were other procedural means through which defendant could obtain the records, and that the trial court did not have authority to grant the motion to compel them as it did. View "Petition of State of New Hampshire" on Justia Law