Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Ryan Martin appealed a superior court ruling that sentenced him to both a stand-committed prison term of one to three years and probation for two years. Finding no error nor abuse of discretion in the superior court's sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's ultimate sentence. View "New Hampshire v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant Nicholas Trebian was convicted by jury of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, and possession of a controlled drug (ecstasy). On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the ecstasy possession charge. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Trebian " on Justia Law

Defendant Amato Russo appealed his conviction by jury on two counts of theft by deception and two alternative counts of theft by unauthorized taking. He argued on appeal that the superior court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and by allowing standby counsel to participate in the trial. Further, he argued that the court erred when it imposed an extended prison term. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "New Hampshire v. Russo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by jury of attempted kidnapping and attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal of his conviction, he argued that : (1) he was denied a unanimous jury verdict on the attempted aggravated sexual assault charge; and (2) he was entitled to a dismissal of the attempted kidnapping charged based on merger. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's argument that the jury instruction delivered by the trial court allowed the jury to convict him without being unanimous as to the elements constituting attempted AFSA because the two variants of AFSA require different elements. The Court concluded that defendant's attempt to confine his victim was incidental and inseparable from his attempt to commit AFSA. Accordingly, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the kidnapping charged based on merger. View "New Hampshire v. Casanova" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order which granted defendant Patrick Eschenbrenner a new trial on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault based on the court's conclusion that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the State argued that defendant's trial attorneys were not ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony presented at trial, and that no reasonable probability existed that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the trial court excluded the testimony in question. Upon review of the trial court record and the testimony at issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the State's argument, concluding defendant did not suffer actual prejudice at trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's conclusion. View "New Hampshire v. Eschenbrenner" on Justia Law

Defendant Lynn Dion was convicted by jury of negligent homicide. She appealed her conviction arguing: (1) using a cell phone while driving does not constitute the requisite wrongful conduct to establish the culpable mental state for criminal negligence, and therefore the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude certain cell phone records admitted into evidence. The State introduced at trial over defendant's objection her cell phone records that revealed defendant made and received a number of calls in a thirty-seven minute car ride, "sometimes using the 'call waiting' feature to switch back and forth between conversations." At the close of the State's case, defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that her use of the cell phone while driving was not illegal, and that was the only conduct the jury could attribute to her. Finding that "although talking on a [cell] phone would not establish as a matter of law, it is at least some evidence from which a jury could infer that the driver was not devoting her full time and attention to her driving. . . that she was not exercising reasonable care under the circumstances," the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Dion" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Thompson appealed his conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI) for which he was sentenced to enhanced penalties for a third offense. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him for a third DWI because the State failed to submit evidence of his two prior convictions in its case-in-chief. Finding no merit to Defendant's argument, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant Thavone Souksamrane appealed his convictions for criminal threatening and being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in permitting the State to question him about the veracity of other witnesses. The State conceded that the questioning in this case was improper. However, because of the "overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt," the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "New Hampshire v. Souksamrane" on Justia Law

Defendant Alan Lathrop appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that Alderberry Lane in Moultonborough, where the accident took place that ultimately resulted in his arrest, was a "way" (and therefore not open for public use) for purposes of the DWI statute; because only members, guests and a loose category of invitees are permitted to use the road, it is not "open." After review of the statutory authority, the Supreme Court rejected Defendant's contention: " it would be contrary to legislative intent to construe the statute to provide that a private road in a lakeside community that is used by residents…. Is a DWI-free zone." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Lathrop" on Justia Law

Defendant Peter Gibbs appealed his convictions on two counts of criminal restraint and one count of being an armed career criminal. On appeal, Defendant argued that: (1) his right against double jeopardy was violated when he was twice convicted of a single criminal restraint; (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of being an armed career criminal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the facts of this case demonstrated that the victim was continuously confined from the time he was tied in the basement until the point at which he was able to free himself and, therefore, the defendant engaged in only one episode of criminal restraint. Accordingly, one of the two criminal restraint convictions and sentences must be vacated. The Court vacated one count of Defendant's conviction, but affirmed in all other respects. View "New Hampshire v. Gibbs, Jr." on Justia Law