Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed a superior court decision dismissing its indictment against defendant Thomas White for violating RSA 651-B:4-a (Supp. 2012), which requires registered sex offenders to report to law enforcement the creation of an "online identifier." RSA 651-B:4-a requires registered sex offenders to report to law enforcement "any changes to an existing online identifier, or the creation of any new online identifier," before using it. "[O]nline identifier" includes "electronic mail address, instant message screen name, user identification, user profile information, and chat or other Internet communication name or identity information." The indictment alleged that the defendant "did knowingly fail to . . . report a MySpace account" as required under the statute. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the defendant used his own name and already-reported e-mail address to create the account; thus, the trial court concluded, the defendant was not required under the statute to report the account's existence. The Supreme Court reversed. Construing "user profile" to include defendant's Myspace account "also comports with the general purposes of sex offender registration and reporting requirements, including the twin goals of 'investigating crimes committed online by registered sex offenders' and discouraging registered sex offenders 'from engaging in such criminal activities.'" The Court concluded that a Myspace account includes "user profile information," which, therefore, is an "online identifier" subject to the reporting requirement of RSA 651-B:4-a. View "New Hampshire v. White" on Justia Law

After a jury trial defendant Mohamed Ouahman was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, and two counts of robbery. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the State's use of its peremptory challenges to strike male jurors. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's determination that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination was not clearly erroneous. View "New Hampshire v. Ouahman" on Justia Law

Defendant Samuel Biondolillo appealed his conviction of disorderly conduct. He argued: (1) that his conviction violated his constitutional right to free speech; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (3) that, for several reasons, the trial court committed plain error. Finding none of Defendant's arguments persuasive on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Biondolillo" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial in Superior Court, Defendant Dianna Saunders appealed her convictions for being an accomplice to first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, theft by unauthorized taking, and theft by misapplication of property. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred when it: (1) instructed the jury that where a case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, the evidence does not have to exclude all rational conclusions other than the defendant’s guilt; (2) found that the defendant consented to a general rather than a limited search of her home; and (3) did not address the constitutionality of the warrant to search the home. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Saunders" on Justia Law

Defendant John Brooks appealed his conviction following a jury trial for capital murder involving solicitation, capital murder in the course of a kidnapping, first degree murder (as an accomplice), and conspiracy to commit capital murder, in connection with the death of Jack Reid, Sr. On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred by: (1) permitting the State to authenticate documents by use of affidavits, rather than live testimony, in violation of his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) permitting an FBI agent to testify that the defendant's account may have been untruthful; (3) permitting the State to introduce a new opinion from the medical examiner during the trial; (4) failing to instruct the jury that it must determine the "predominating cause" of death, pursuant to "State v. Seymour;" (5) failing to instruct the jury that the solicitation variant of capital murder requires a finding that the defendant acted for his personal pecuniary gain; and (6) failing to instruct the jury that the kidnapping variant of capital murder requires a finding that the defendant intended to confine Reid to commit a crime other than murder. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant Jonathan Charest appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court following his conviction by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm. After the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the felon-in-possession charge, the trial court asked the jury to issue a special verdict on whether it unanimously found that the defendant possessed, rather than controlled or owned, a firearm. The jury answered "yes." The trial court sentenced the defendant to three to six years' imprisonment. The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of three years under RSA 651:2, II-g, which applies "[i]f a person is convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession . . . of a deadly weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm." At sentencing, the trial judge explained to the defendant, "You were just sentenced to the minimum. . . . I don't have any discretion . . . to do anything other than to sentence you . . . to . . . those terms." The defendant did not appeal his conviction, but argued that the trial court erred when it imposed the minimum mandatory sentence under RSA 651:2, II-g because: (1) the offense he was charged with, RSA 159:3, I, did not have as an element the possession of a firearm in a manner that rendered it a deadly weapon under RSA 625:11, V; and (2) the jury did not find that he possessed a deadly weapon within the meaning of RSA 625:11, V. Because the defendant did not make these arguments before the trial court, he invoked the plain error rule, which allowed the Supreme Court to correct errors not raised before the trial court. Because the trial court erroneously failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it at sentencing, the Court found that the error affected the integrity and fairness of the judicial proceedings. Accordingly, Defendant's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "New Hampshire v. Charest" on Justia Law

Defendant Calvin Dunn, III appealed a superior court order that denied his motion to vacate the imposition of a suspended sentence. In 2006, defendant pled guilty to one count of accomplice to burglary and one count of tampering with witnesses. Under the plea agreement, he was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of three and one-half to seven years, suspended for five years on the condition of his good behavior. On May 11, 2010, the Laconia District Court found defendant guilty of two counts of simple assault and one count of criminal threatening in connection with a physical altercation that occurred in 2009. Defendant appealed to the superior court for a jury trial. Later in May, the State filed a motion to impose the 2006 suspended sentence, alleging that the physical altercation constituted a violation of the good behavior requirement. The defendant requested that the hearing on the motion to impose be deferred until final disposition of the pending criminal trial. The State objected, and the court denied defendant's request. On July 6, 2011, defendant was tried by a jury on the charges stemming from the 2009 altercation. At trial, he argued that his actions were justified by self-defense. The jury acquitted him of all the charges. On July 21, defendant filed a motion to vacate the imposition of his sentence for the 2006 convictions. He argued that his actions in the 2009 altercation were justified by self-defense, as evidenced by the jury's acquittal on those charges, and, thus, he did not violate the good behavior requirement of his 2006 suspended sentence. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Defendant Logan Schulz appealed his convictions for being an accomplice to possession of cocaine, and an accomplice to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He argued that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search warrant for his home was unconstitutional both on its face and in its execution. In 2010, a Haverhill Police officer went to the home that Defendant shared with his mother to serve her with a notice against trespass and harassment. While lawfully inside the home, the officer saw three long guns near a staircase. Knowing that the defendant's mother was a convicted felon and prohibited from possessing firearms, the officer sought a warrant to search the home. Early in the search, they learned that the three guns near the staircase were, in fact, "BB" guns and were not unlawful for the defendant's mother to possess. The officers then continued the search and asked the defendant whether there were any additional guns in the house. The defendant informed them that he had a muzzle loader rifle and took them to his bedroom to show it to them. In the room, the officer observed a lock box large enough to contain a handgun but too small to contain a long gun, and told the defendant to open it, noting that the officers could open it by force if necessary. Both the defendant and his mother protested on the grounds that the police had no reason to believe they had a handgun. The defendant's mother then became upset and admitted that the lock box contained cocaine and money. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the police were required to discontinue their search after discovering that the guns they had believed to be firearms were, in fact, BB guns. The warrant contained no other facts upon which the police might have relied in continuing to believe that the search was justified. As a result, the officers' continued search of the defendant's home under authority of the warrant was unconstitutional. View "New Hampshire v. Schulz" on Justia Law

Defendant Jonathan Ball appealed his conviction following a bench trial on stipulated facts one felony count of possessing child sexual abuse images (child pornography). On appeal, he argued that the Superior Court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from the search of his home computer. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Ball" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court order that dismissed charges filed against Defendant Burton Hollenbeck, Jr. because it determined that the statute upon which they were based violated Defendant's state and federal substantive due process rights. Defendant was a licensed psychologist who provided services to the complainant in 2007. Less than a year after the therapy ended, the two became sexually involved. In April 2010, defendant was charged with thirty counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA) for engaging in sexual penetration with the complainant between February 1, 2008, and December 9, 2008. The indictments alleged that by engaging in sexual penetration with the complainant "within one year of the termination of their therapeutic relationship," defendant "act[ed] in a manner which is not professionally recognized as ethical," thereby violating RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1). In December 2010, defendant moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing, inter alia, that RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) violated his state and federal rights to substantive due process because it "criminalizes the private sexual conduct of consenting adults." The trial court agreed, and this appeal followed. Because defendant did not meet his burden of proving that RSA 632-A:2, I(g)(1) was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose in all circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded after its review of the case that his facial challenge failed. The Court reached the same result under the Federal Constitution as it did under the State Constitution because the Federal Constitution offers the defendant no greater protection than does the State Constitution under these circumstances.