Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Matthew Tabaldi appealed his convictions for the sale of narcotics, possession of narcotics, being a felon in possession of an electronic defense weapon, and for receiving stolen property. He argued the superior court erred in denying his motion to strike a prospective juror, and by denying his motions to dismiss the weapon-possession and narcotics-possession charges. Additionally, defendant claimed the court erred in admitting certain evidence over his objection. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Tabaldi" on Justia Law

Defendant William Decato appealed his convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault, attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and falsifying physical evidence, on the ground that he was incompetent to stand trial. Finding that the trial court did not err in finding defendant competent to stand trial, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Decato" on Justia Law

Defendant Ernest Willis appealed his conviction on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA) and one count of felonious sexual assault (FSA). He alleged the Superior Court erred by admitting at trial statements he made to his church pastor, which he asserted violated his religious privilege, and by admitting certain portions of a recording of a police interview of him. Although his notice of appeal referenced his conviction by plea on a second charge of FSA, his brief did not assert any error as to his plea. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed all four convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Willis" on Justia Law

Defendant Bradford Dalton was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI)-third offense, following a bench trial. He appealed his convictions based on his contention the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dalton" on Justia Law

Police searched defendant's vehicle and found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol adjacent to a loaded magazine in the vehicle's glove compartment. The pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber or a magazine in the magazine well. The State charged the defendant with a class A misdemeanor for "knowingly carry[ing] a loaded pistol . . . in a vehicle without a valid license . . . ." Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that "[t]he firearm at issue was not loaded and therefore no license was required and no crime was committed." The trial court found RSA 159:4 "potentially ambiguous" and transferred the question to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the definition of a ‘loaded pistol or revolver' [under RSA 159:4 (2002)] did not encompass a firearm with no cartridge in the firearm, and no magazine in the magazine well, or with a loaded magazine located next to it and easily accessible. View "New Hampshire v. Dor" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Noucas appealed his conviction as an accomplice for armed robbery. He argued that the evidence presented against him was insufficient to sustain the conviction. He also argued multiple errors at trial warranted dismissal of the charges. Finding the evidence sufficient and no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Noucas" on Justia Law

Defendant Wayne Dorrance appealed his conviction for second degree assault on a police officer. He argued the evidence presented against him was insufficient to sustain the charges. After review, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support defendant's conviction and affirmed it. View "New Hampshire v. Dorrance" on Justia Law

Defendant William Ploof was convicted by jury of aggravated felonious assault and conspiracy to commit felonious aggravated assault. On appeal, he argued that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to convict him, and that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial during the victim's testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a rational jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. View "New Hampshire v. Ploof" on Justia Law

Petitioner Justin Czyzewski appealed a Superior Court ruling that denied his request for a declaration that although he was convicted of attempted sexual assault, he was not required to register as a sex offender under New Hampshire law. Although the record did not contain the details of his conviction for attempted sexual assault, the trial court noted that the petitioner "engaged in conduct in an online chat room with an undercover police detective, whom [he] believed to be a 13-year old female." The petitioner lived in Pennsylvania but, as the trial court stated, "was required to register as a sex offender [there] because he would be required to register in New Hampshire." Upon review, the Supreme Court could not " subscribe to the petitioner's statutory interpretation," and affirmed the Superior Court's ruling. View "Czyzewski v. New Hampshire Department of Safety" on Justia Law

Defendant Todd Leavitt appealed his convictions by jury on two counts of simple assault on a police officer. In 2010, the defendant called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher that he was suicidal and needed an ambulance. Because the defendant said he was uninjured, the dispatcher sent the police to his residence. The defendant became agitated when the police arrived instead of an ambulance, "screaming and shouting" and asserting that he did not want them to be there. The police offered to drive him to the hospital, but he refused, and he began walking in the direction of the hospital. The police then decided to take him into protective custody, and, in the ensuing struggle, he kicked Officer Nicholas Alden in the leg. He again kicked Officer Alden after they arrived at the hospital. The defendant was indicted on two counts of simple assault. The charging documents were worded identically in every respect except as to the "Charge ID" number and the designation as either "Count 1" or "Count 2." The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the jury could not "differentiate what evidence goes to which [indictment]," in violation of double jeopardy principles. The trial court denied his motion and, after a trial, a jury returned guilty verdicts on both indictments. The Supreme Court agreed with the State that defendant's convictions did not violate the federal Double Jeopardy Clause, and affirmed defendant's convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Leavitt" on Justia Law