Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Keith Fitzgerald appealed a superior court order sentencing him, on remand, to nine and one-half to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court: (1) unsustainably exercised its discretion and committed an error of law by re-imposing the same sentence that it had imposed previously; and (2) violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by relying upon improper information and failing to set forth, in detail, the basis for its sentencing decision. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

Defendant Brandon Griffin was convicted by jury of being a drug enterprise leader (DEL). On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motions to dismiss the DEL charge for: (1) lack of a speedy trial; and (2) violating his right to due process of law as set forth in New Hampshire v. Lordan, 116 N.H. 479 (1976). After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated because defendant acquiesced to the majority of the delay and suffered no identifiable prejudice. Furthermore, the Court concluded defendant’s due process rights were not violated because the Court's holding in Lordan did not apply to the State’s DEL prosecution of defendant. View "New Hampshire v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Defendant Daswan Jette appealed his conviction by jury on one count of reckless manslaughter. Defendant argued the trial court: (1) erred by excluding evidence that, more than one month before her death, the victim sold drugs to an individual who paid her with counterfeit money; and (2) may have erred by failing to order the disclosure of certain records submitted for in camera review. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that, even if the victim’s prior drug sale was relevant to defendant’s self-defense claim, the trial court properly excluded evidence of the previous sale pursuant to New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err by withholding certain records that it reviewed in camera. View "New Hampshire v. Jette" on Justia Law

Defendant Carley Williams appealed a circuit court decision to impose a portion of her suspended sentence. In 2016, defendant reported to police that a customer at work had exposed himself to her. This report was false, and, in 2017, she pleaded guilty to unsworn falsification and making a false report to law enforcement. For these offenses, the defendant received a 12-month correctional sentence, deferred for one year on the condition of good behavior, and then suspended for one year on the same terms. In April 2019, defendant was arrested for theft by unauthorized taking. She was later convicted on this charge, and there was no dispute that her conviction violated the terms of her suspended sentence. In June 2019, the State moved to impose the 12-month suspended sentence. At a November hearing on the motion, defendant claimed to be her brother’s primary caretaker and argued that imposition of the 12-month suspended sentence would deprive him of necessary care. As a result, the trial court imposed only 10 days of the 12-month sentence. The State moved to reconsider that decision, arguing that defendant had lied to the court about the extent of her brother’s medical problems and her role caring for him. Defendant subsequently filed a police report claiming that, on November 4, M.P., the daughter of her brother’s girlfriend, had stolen from her. Later, defendant called the Milford Police Department, posing as M.P., and asked whether there was a warrant for M.P.’s arrest. In February 2020, the State filed a second motion to impose, asserting that defendant committed identity fraud by “posing as another individual in an attempt to obtain confidential information.” Following a multi-day, in-person, evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found defendant violated the suspended sentence’s condition of good behavior, in part, by committing identity fraud, and that the violation warranted imposing “a reasonable portion of the suspended sentence.” On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by finding that she committed identity fraud and by holding the hearing telephonically, at which it imposed 70 days (less 10 days of time served) of the 12-month suspended sentence. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Roy appealed his convictions after a jury found him guilty on one count of felony domestic violence–criminal threatening with a deadly weapon, and four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence–simple assault. On appeal, defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to convict him of felony domestic violence, and that the trial court erred by precluding him from questioning the victim about sexually explicit text messages and by redacting the sexually explicit content from the messages before publishing them to the jury. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Roy" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Davis appealed his conviction for one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, challenging a superior court order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into the enclosed porch of his residence and subsequent warrantless entry into the interior. He also argued the trial court erred when it did not suppress evidence seized during a subsequent search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant because the warrant was predicated upon evidence obtained during the two prior unlawful intrusions. The State contended that both entries were lawful and, therefore, the later warrant search of the defendant’s residence was also lawful. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with defendant that the evidence obtained during the two warrantless entries was unlawfully acquired, and that the search warrant’s reliance on that evidence renders it invalid, it reversed and remanded. View "New Hampshire v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Boulton was convicted by jury on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one count of misdemeanor sexual assault. HE argued on appeal that the Superior Court erred by: (1) denying his request to enter portions of the transcript of his interview with police into the record; and (2) allowing a witness for the State to offer expert testimony while testifying as a lay witness. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Boulton" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Gedney was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and the Superior Court ordered him to make restitution of up to $10,000 for counseling to the victims. Defendant argued that the trial court erred because the State failed to prove that his acts directly caused the victims to seek counseling. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gedney" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Clark was convicted by jury on five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (AFSA), one count of attempted AFSA, and one count of felonious sexual assault. Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of: (1) a victim’s change in gender identity after the sexual assaults were disclosed; and (2) defendant’s display of pornographic images to his minor nephews around the time of the sexual assaults. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly addressed evidence of the victim’s change in gender identity through voir dire and subsequent jury instructions. The Court also concluded that evidence that the defendant displayed pornographic images to his minor nephews was admissible to corroborate the victim’s testimony. Further, given the evidence describing the nature of the assaults, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Lastly, defendant asked the Supreme Court to review the Superior Court’s decision to withhold some of the confidential records provided for in camera review. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in New Hampshire v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (2020), when it conducted its in camera review, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of reviewing the withheld confidential records in accordance with the standard set forth in Girard. View "New Hampshire v. Clark" on Justia Law

The State appealed a circuit court order granting defendant David Almeida's motion to suppress the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The issue this appeal presented for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's review centered on whether the performance of a BAC test on a blood sample, which was drawn by the State with defendant’s valid consent, constituted a search within the meaning of Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Supreme Court concluded that it was not a search, judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the State contended defendant lacked a subjective expectation of privacy in his BAC because he voluntarily gave a blood sample to the State, and that he lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his BAC because of the reduced expectation of privacy an individual has while driving. The defendant countered that the BAC test was a search because he had “a significant privacy interest in his blood,” which contains a “vast amount of personal information” including genetic predispositions, family connections, and private medical facts. The Supreme Court agreed with the State. View "New Hampshire v. Almeida" on Justia Law