William F. Batchelder

This case involved an appeal from a probate court order terminating the parental rights of John and Jane Doe over their two minor children, Sally and Joe, and vesting custody in the state Division of Welfare, based on petitions alleging the parents' mental deficiencies or illnesses rendered them incapable of providing proper care under RSA 170-C:5, IV. The court affirmed the termination of John Doe's rights, citing evidence of his physical abuse of Sally and supporting psychiatric testimony, but vacated the termination of Jane Doe's rights and remanded for further findings. The core reasoning was that the statute requires explicit findings beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by the record, showing the specific detrimental effect of a parent's mental condition on the child before termination, and that one parent's conduct cannot be imputed to the other without evidence that no alternative arrangements are feasible. The court also upheld the admission of certain psychiatric testimony after finding that privilege had been waived through releases.

family lawprocedure

In Randall v. Riel, buyers who had made a down payment and some monthly installments under a bond for deed for real property defaulted on payments, leading sellers to seek eviction and retain all prior payments under a forfeiture clause that treated them as liquidated damages. The trial court approved strict enforcement of the clause without further inquiry. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the master had failed to apply the established test for whether a stipulated damages provision is enforceable as liquidated damages or instead constitutes an unenforceable penalty. Under that test, the court directed the lower court on remand to calculate reasonable damages as the difference between the property's market value and the contract price, plus any special damages from the breach.

property

This case involved an appeal challenging the trial court's limited award of attorney's fees and expenses to counsel appointed to represent an indigent defendant charged with misdemeanor theft. The trial court had capped fees at $500 and partially reimbursed expenses, leading to a total award of $700 despite higher claimed amounts. The court decided to remand the case for redetermination of fees and costs, while amending the applicable rule to permit exceeding the fee maximum in exceptional circumstances upon a showing of good cause. The reasoning centered on distinguishing between capped legal fees and reimbursable expenses, finding that failure to cover necessary out-of-pocket expenses constitutes an unconstitutional taking and impairs the right to effective assistance of counsel.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerns landowners who sued an abutting owner and later-added corporate defendants for wilful trespass involving tree cutting and excavation on their property, seeking common-law damages plus enhanced (treble or quintuple) damages under RSA chapter 539. The corporate defendants moved to dismiss the statutory multiple-damages claims as time-barred by the two-year limitations period in RSA 539:8, because the conduct ended more than two years before they were joined, even though the plaintiffs first learned of the damage in spring 1980. The trial court applied the discovery rule to allow the claims to proceed; on interlocutory appeal the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the discovery rule applies to these tort actions for harm to real property, so the limitations clock begins only when a plaintiff discovers or reasonably should discover both the injury and its likely cause. The court remanded for a factual finding on whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the wrongdoing.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this divorce case, the wife appealed a master's recommendations, approved by the trial court, that the marital home be sold with equity split equally and that the husband have no obligation to support her daughter from a prior marriage. The court affirmed, holding that a professional degree earned during the marriage is not a divisible marital asset absent specific financial contributions by the other spouse, and that any statutory stepparent support duty under New Hampshire law ends upon dissolution of the marriage absent adoption. The decision rested on the master's broad discretion in equitable property distribution after considering the parties' economic circumstances, incomes, and contributions, as well as precedent that a graduate degree represents only potential future earning capacity rather than a present asset. The court also aligned with the majority rule in other jurisdictions that the stepparent relationship and associated support obligations terminate with divorce.

family lawproperty

In Morrill v. Webb, the plaintiffs sued the defendant for willful trespass to timber under RSA 539:1 after the defendant directed a contractor to cut trees on the plaintiffs' abutting land due to an erroneous boundary instruction, despite later warnings and available maps. The trial court found the defendant liable, awarded $1,400 in actual damages quintupled to $7,000, and the defendant appealed on grounds including the burden of proof, sufficiency of evidence for willfulness, and failure to credit a $1,000 settlement with the co-tortfeasor. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the finding of willful trespass, holding that the action is civil (not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and that the evidence supported willfulness based on the defendant's failure to verify boundaries despite accessible information. It reversed in part on damages, ruling that the settlement must be credited against the total quintupled award rather than actual damages alone, resulting in a $6,000 judgment for the plaintiffs.

propertytorts & liability

This case arose from a 1979 rear-end collision in which the defendant, who had a prior DWI conviction, pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sued by the injured plaintiffs for negligence. Nearly two years after the accident, a statute took effect providing for double damages in civil actions against defendants convicted of a second or subsequent DWI within seven years. The superior court ruled that the statute applied retroactively to the pending suit, but the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed on interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that the statute is remedial rather than penal, yet still held that it could not be applied to accidents occurring before its August 29, 1981 effective date because doing so would impose new substantive liabilities.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved a URESA proceeding in New Hampshire to enforce a child support obligation after a Connecticut court had already entered a judgment of paternity against the defendant. The defendant sought to raise a non-paternity defense in the New Hampshire court, but the trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior Connecticut judgment was entitled to full faith and credit as res judicata because the defendant failed to show any jurisdictional defect or other infirmity. The court noted that under URESA, a foreign paternity judgment generally precludes relitigation of the issue in the responding state unless the defense is shown to be non-frivolous.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the Milan School District challenging a State Board of Education order requiring it to provide special education services to a profoundly mentally retarded child with cerebral palsy who lived in the district. The district had determined the child could not benefit from education and stopped services, leading to appeals that resulted in the board ordering continued services and an individualized education plan. The New Hampshire Supreme Court dismissed the district's petition for a writ of certiorari without reaching the merits, holding that federal law under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act requires any review to occur in a state trial court or federal district court where additional evidence may be presented, rather than through certiorari to an appellate court.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case involved the defendant’s convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault and first-degree assault arising from an attack on a hitchhiker in 1980. The defendant challenged the convictions on appeal, arguing that a pre-arrest photographic lineup was unnecessarily suggestive in violation of due process and that a statement in the trial judge’s jury instructions improperly lowered the State’s burden of proof. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the out-of-court identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances despite any suggestiveness in the procedures, and that the jury instructions as a whole properly preserved the reasonable-doubt standard. The court therefore found both the identification evidence and the verdict valid.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a divorced father's motion to reduce his weekly child support and alimony payments after he lost his higher-paying job following an arrest for stealing trade secrets from his employer. The trial court granted the reduction based on his lower current income as a surveyor's helper and suspended alimony, while directing that existing arrearages be deducted from his share of the marital home proceeds upon sale. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding that modification was improper because the father's diminished earning capacity resulted from his own criminal conduct and he retained an asset (his interest in the jointly owned home) that could secure the original obligations. The court explained that a support order may not be reduced when the change in circumstances stems from the obligated party's fault, consistent with equitable principles that bar relief for those with unclean hands.

family law

In State v. Reynolds, the defendant appealed his burglary conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly illegal arrest based on insufficient probable cause. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for retrial, holding that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant after matching a sneaker print at the burglary scene to the defendant's popular-brand sneakers, as the defendant was several miles away and showed no suspicious behavior. The court reasoned that a single non-distinctive footprint from a common shoe type, without additional linking evidence, was insufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest under state law, distinguishing this case from precedents with more corroborating facts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a petition by the State of Idaho under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) seeking reimbursement from William Kinney for $3,719 in AFDC benefits provided to his two minor children after their mother moved to Idaho. The superior court ordered Kinney to pay $25 per month until the arrearage was paid in full, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed that order. The court held that Kinney had an ongoing duty to support his children under New Hampshire law during the relevant period, which could not be waived or limited by the support stipulation in the divorce decree. It further concluded that Kinney's own admissions and testimony provided sufficient basis for the order and that he had offered no defense requiring a continuance under RSA 546:20.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over title to a 22.4-acre parcel of land in Strafford, New Hampshire, where the plaintiff Phebe Chao and defendant The Richey Company, Inc. each claimed ownership based on their deeds, with the key issue being the location of the Farmington-Strafford town line as described in the deeds and an unrecorded plan. The plaintiff’s deed referenced an approximate town line on the Nolte plan that was about 600 feet from the actual line, potentially adding extra acreage, while the defendant’s deed excepted the plaintiff’s property and referenced the actual town line. The trial master found for the defendants, determining that the parties intended to convey approximately 30-33 acres as described by courses and distances, and the court affirmed this decision. The core reasoning was that while monuments like town lines generally prevail over courses and distances in deed interpretation, this rule is an aid to discern intent and yields to substantial evidence of contrary intent from the deed language, plan, and surrounding circumstances, which supported the master’s factual findings on the parties’ intent.

property

In Stapleford v. Perrin, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief and appealed after a trial court denied his motion to suspend a previously imposed prison sentence and imposed a new sentence on a conviction that had been marked continued for sentence, based on allegations of misconduct during a period of conditional freedom. The New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that due process protections apply whenever a court considers imposing incarceration in contexts such as revoking suspended sentences or bringing forward continued cases, because these involve a significant liberty interest. The court held that the record must reflect written notice of the triggering conduct, disclosure of evidence, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, confrontation rights, a statement of the evidence relied upon and reasons for the decision, and the right to counsel, drawing from precedents like Morrissey v. Brewer. It vacated the trial court's orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these requirements.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether Christmas trees grown and harvested for sale on the plaintiff's property in Dunbarton were subject to New Hampshire's yield tax on timber under RSA chapter 79, or instead subject only to general property taxation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, ruling that Christmas trees are not subject to the yield tax, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the yield tax applies to mature timber suitable for building or manufacturing uses, as indicated by statutory definitions and legislative intent to promote conservation of forests, whereas Christmas trees are immature, harvested after at most ten years, and not used for those purposes, making them more akin to crops. The statute explicitly exempts certain trees like fruit trees and nursery stock from the yield tax, and Christmas trees fall outside the definition of taxable timber.

taxesproperty

This case concerned a dispute between property owners in the Eidelweiss subdivision and the Village District of Eidelweiss over the district's refusal to provide water service. The plaintiffs had purchased land without a maintenance fee obligation in their deed, refused to pay such fees to the prior owner Great Northern, and had their water cut off; after the district acquired the water system under an agreement barring service to the plaintiffs until Great Northern granted a release, it continued the cutoff. The superior court ruled that the district's action violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, awarded Great Northern $1,250 on a quantum meruit claim for prior water services, and granted the plaintiffs $1,500 in attorney fees under § 1988. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the § 1983 ruling on the ground that a governmental entity may not withhold a public service to coerce payment of a debt owed to a third party, reversed the quantum meruit award because it was barred by res judicata from prior Massachusetts litigation, and remanded the fee award for recalculation limited to time spent on the § 1983 claim.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case concerned the application of New Hampshire's rape shield statute to discovery depositions in an aggravated felonious sexual assault prosecution. The defendant sought to question the victim about her prior sexual activity with others during a deposition, but she refused on statutory grounds, leading the trial court to grant a motion to compel answers while reserving admissibility issues. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statute applies to depositions because it creates a testimonial privilege grounded in privacy rights and intended to shield victims from unnecessary embarrassment. The court held that the defendant must first demonstrate at a hearing a reasonable possibility that the sought information would produce evidence admissible at trial under due process standards before compelling answers. The matter was remanded for application of this standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Allan P. Danskin for arson in the destruction of the Canaan, New Hampshire Elementary School by fire. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict and that the trial court erred in refusing to question the jury about potential prejudice from a newspaper article. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's presence as the sole person in the building, evidence of an accelerant, and inconsistencies in his statements, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also ruled that polling the jury for prejudice was within the trial court's discretion, with no abuse found in this instance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case consolidated a declaratory judgment action on the scope of motor vehicle insurance coverage owed to an insured employee with an underlying tort suit brought by one co-employee against another for injuries sustained on a job site. The key issue transferred to the court was a choice-of-law question: whether New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Maine law governed the tort claim, given that Massachusetts and Maine law barred suits between co-employees while New Hampshire law at the time of the accident permitted them. Applying the five Clark choice-influencing considerations—including predictability, interstate relations, simplification of the judicial task, forum interests, and the sounder rule of law—the court determined that the law of either Massachusetts or Maine should apply because the employment was based there and the accident occurred in Maine, resulting in a false conflict that barred the suit.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment