Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In the case argued before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the defendant, Joshua D. Shea, was convicted of criminal threatening with a deadly weapon. The case surrounds an altercation involving a road rage incident. According to Shea, the complainant approached him aggressively, to which Shea responded by unclipping his holster containing a firearm and rolling it up to his chest, warning the complainant that he had a firearm. The complainant claimed Shea pointed the gun at him, a claim Shea denied. Shea was thereafter indicted for criminal threatening.On appeal, Shea argued that the trial court erred in its jury instruction concerning the statutory defense related to the display of a firearm. The trial court had told the jury to consider whether Shea could have safely left the area without any risk to himself or others, which Shea contended imposed on him a duty to retreat not mandated by the statute.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire agreed with Shea, holding that the trial court’s jury instruction was incorrect. The court explained that the legislation only imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force, not non-deadly force. The court found that the display of a firearm in this case constituted non-deadly force. Therefore, Shea was not required to retreat before displaying his firearm. The court concluded that the ability to retreat in lieu of displaying a firearm is not a relevant factor when determining whether a threat would be considered likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.As a result, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed Shea’s conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Shea" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the defendant, Nestor Roman, appealed his convictions of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA), attempted AFSA, and misdemeanor sexual assault. The key issue in the appeal was whether the defense or the prosecution "opened the door" to allow testimony from a nurse who performed a Child Advocacy and Protection Program (CAPP) examination of the victim. The defense argued that the prosecution opened the door by introducing testimony about the existence of medical records from the CAPP examination, which created a misleading impression that there was medical evidence supporting the charges. The prosecution argued that the defense opened the door by asking specific questions about the nurse's findings documented in the records.The Supreme Court held that the defense opened the door to the nurse's testimony. The court reasoned that the prosecution's mention of the existence of medical records did not create a misleading advantage, as the prosecution did not discuss the contents of these records, and therefore did not open the door. On the other hand, the defense's cross-examination of a detective about the specific findings of the CAPP examination was considered inadmissible hearsay and opened the door to the nurse's testimony to counter the prejudice caused.The court also disagreed with the defense's argument that the admission of the nurse's testimony was overly prejudicial and served to bolster the victim's credibility. The court noted that the nurse's testimony was narrowly focused on her findings and did not establish whether the victim was sexually abused. The court concluded that the defense failed to demonstrate that the trial court's decision was an unsustainable exercise of its discretion or that it was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. The court thus affirmed the defendant's convictions. View "State of New Hampshire v. Roman" on Justia Law

Defendant Charles Paul was convicted by jury of attempted murder and of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon. Defendant argued the trial court erred by: (1) granting the State’s motion in limine to admit evidence of his prior convictions under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 609; and (2) failing to disclose additional portions of the victim’s mental health records submitted for in camera review. the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in either respect and therefore affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Paul" on Justia Law

Defendant Julie Hellinger was tried on charges of disobeying a police officer (class A misdemeanor), and driving after suspension (violation-level offense). Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress, arguing that the motor vehicle stop by the police was unlawful. Her motion was denied, and defendant was convicted on both charges. She appealed her conviction for disobeying an officer to the superior court, and appealed her conviction for driving after suspension directly to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In superior court, defendant again moved to suppress. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal of that ruling. The Supreme Court consolidated the two appeals. After review, the Supreme Court reversed her circuit court conviction for driving after suspension, vacated the superior court order denying her motion to suppress, and remanded both matters. The State conceded the trial court erred with respect to the driving after suspension charge, agreeing that the officer did not have the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to support a motor vehicle stop of defendant. If the stop was illegal, then the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not make findings "sufficient to purge the taint" with regard to the remaining charge. View "New Hampshire v. Hellinger" on Justia Law

Defendant Keith Chandler was convicted by jury on five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, two counts of attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, and two counts of felonious sexual assault. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his motion in limine to preclude the admission of a printed image of electronically stored information; (2) denied his motion for a new trial based upon ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) failed to disclose records following in camera review. THe New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed in part, but remanded for the trial court to review the confidential records in accordance with the standard set forth in New Hampshire v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (2020). "When the trial court conducted its in camera review, it did not have the benefit of our opinion in [Girard]. We agree with the parties that this case should be remanded for the purpose of having the trial court review any undisclosed records again, in accordance with the standard set forth in Girard. If the trial court concludes that the records do contain evidence that should have been disclosed to the defense, the court may release that evidence to the parties with any necessary protective order, taking into account the victim’s rights ... If the court releases any evidence to the parties, the court should then provide the parties with an opportunity to make arguments as to whether a new trial is warranted." View "New Hampshire v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Juvenile D.J. appealed a circuit court's finding of delinquency based on a petition alleging that he committed harassment under RSA 644:4, I(b) (Supp. 2021). The victim told the juveniles that they were not supposed to be riding bicycles on the sidewalk. D.J. told the victim to go “f**k himself.” D.J. continued to yell at the victim, who testified that D.J. was “swearing, saying f**k this and f**k that and you’re nothing but an old man.” The victim yelled back at D.J. and asserted that he could do martial arts. D.J. got off his bicycle, provoked the victim to fight, and took off his shirt. The owner of a store across the street from this encounter observed the confrontation and, after it had gone on for approximately five minutes, she began to record it using her cellphone. The store owner also called the police. The incident lasted approximately eight minutes, until a patrol officer arrived at the scene. D.J. argued there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding, and that RSA 644:4, I(b) was unconstitutional as applied and on its face. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re D.J." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Jordan appealed a superior court order denying his motion for earned time credits. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred when it declined to approve the recommendations made by the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections that the defendant receive several 60-day reductions of his minimum and maximum sentences. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that courts have broad discretion to consider all relevant factors in their decision to grant, or decline to grant, approval for earned time credit, and that the court was free to consider either the crime for which the defendant was convicted or the degree of harm suffered by the victims when it exercises this discretion. Finding no abuse of such discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order. View "New Hampshire v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Defendant N.B. appealed a final civil stalking protective order entered for the protection of plaintiff S.D. Plaintiff and Defendant knew each other since high school, but never had a personal relationship. Sometime after high school, Defendant developed a fixation with Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that Defendant began to contact her via the internet sometime in 2017. Defendant agreed that he had made postings regarding Plaintiff, but testified that they began in 2019. The postings about Plaintiff included sexual suggestions and threats. The trial court held a final hearing on the stalking petition on February 8, 2022, and found that Defendant had stalked Plaintiff. Defendant argued that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he stalked Plaintiff; and (2) the court’s protective order violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "S.D. v. N.B." on Justia Law

Defendant Ian Boudreau was convicted by jury on fourteen counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA). He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by: (1) improperly responding to a jury question during its deliberation concerning the State’s burden of proof; and (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence in its case-in-chief of the defendant’s pre-arrest refusal to speak to the police. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded: (1) the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in responding to the jury question; and (2) though the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence in the State’s case-in-chief, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Boudreau" on Justia Law

The State appealed a superior court’s grant of a motion to suppress statements made by defendant Caleb Marquis. Marquis was charged with several felonies relating t first- and second-degree burns to his girlfriend’s 16-month-old child in his care. The trial court ruled that defendant was subject to custodial interrogation at the time he gave the statements, and, because he was not given Miranda warnings, those statements were obtained in violation of his right against self-incrimination. The State contended that the entire interview should not be suppressed because, even if it became accusatory, it was not accusatory from start to end. The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed after review of the record that the first few minutes of the interview were not accusatory and should not have been suppressed. Once an officer told defendant “it looks like you’re trying to be deceitful” and that “it potentially could be a criminal matter,” the interview became sufficiently accusatory that a reasonable person would believe himself to be in custody, and all subsequent statements should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s suppression order as to the statements made by the defendant prior to these two statements by the officer, but otherwise affirmed the court’s decision. View "New Hampshire v. Marquis" on Justia Law