Laurence Ilsley Duncan

The case involved multiple indictments against used car dealers in New Hampshire for theft by deception under RSA 637:4, based on allegations that they reset odometers to show lower mileage, made false written declarations about the readings, and failed to provide proper certificates of title when selling vehicles. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including that the indictments were duplicitous and failed to provide adequate notice, that the conduct at most constituted misdemeanors under other statutes rather than felonies, and that New Hampshire lacked territorial jurisdiction because the sales occurred in Massachusetts. The court rejected these challenges, holding that each indictment tracked the specific statutory language and subsection with sufficient particularity to inform the defendants of the charges, and that jurisdiction existed because an element of the offense—obtaining control over the proceeds—occurred when the buyers' checks were deposited in New Hampshire accounts. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lovett, the defendant was convicted by a jury of burglary under RSA 635:1 for breaking into a house in Harrisville, New Hampshire, on March 26, 1974. The New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed four issues raised on appeal: the constitutionality of the jury selection statute RSA ch. 500-A, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the burglarized house qualified as an 'occupied structure,' and the admissibility of a briefcase and its contents found near the chase route. The court overruled all exceptions and affirmed the conviction, holding that prior precedent upheld the jury selection process absent evidence of systematic exclusion, that the evidence of tracks in the snow, the vehicle chase, and the defendant's location permitted a reasonable inference of guilt, that the house's furnished and livable condition satisfied the statutory definition, and that a sufficient foundation allowed the jury to connect the briefcase to the crime. The decision rested on established standards for reviewing circumstantial evidence and statutory interpretation without requiring direct proof linking every element.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between the mayor of Nashua and the Nashua School Board over control of the school district budget, particularly regarding cuts to payroll and requests for transfers to fund teacher salaries in the mid-1970s. The mayor sought a ruling that the board of aldermen had primary authority over school appropriations, subject only to minimum state requirements, while the school board asserted exclusive control over employee compensation. The trial court denied the mayor's petition, ruling that the board of education has exclusive authority to set salaries and that the aldermen must appropriate the necessary funds. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the city charter and state statutes preserve the school board's authority to determine compensation without limitation by municipal officials, and that 1969 charter amendments did not alter this arrangement. The court reasoned that historical practice, relevant statutes, and the absence of limiting charter provisions support the board's fiscal autonomy in this area.

labor & employment

The case involved Arlington American Sample Book Company challenging a town's property tax assessment of $337,500 on commercial property it had purchased for $100,000. After prior abatements in earlier years, the company prepared an appeal to the State board of taxation for the 1974 tax year but filed it on June 10, 1975, after the statutory deadline of June 4, 1975, under RSA 76:16-a. The board dismissed the appeal as untimely, and the court affirmed, holding that the six-month filing period is a strict statute of limitations that is not tolled by merely preparing the documents with intent to file, nor extended for accident, mistake, or misfortune by counsel. The court distinguished precedents involving service of process in civil actions and prior cases on consents, emphasizing that the statute's language cuts off the right after the period ends. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

taxespropertyprocedure

In Harrison v. Watson, plaintiffs sued defendant Watson for breach of an oral or implied contract to build a pre-cut log house on their property after disputes led to his dismissal, while a supplier's separate suit sought a mechanic's lien for materials; Watson had settled with the supplier and taken an assignment of its claims. The trial court found a contract existed, awarded plaintiffs $5,923.59 in damages for completion costs and related expenses, and discharged the mechanic's lien. The court upheld these rulings on appeal, reasoning that evidence of the parties' discussions, revised proposal, and conduct supported the trial judge's finding that Watson's offer was accepted to form a binding contract, that damages were properly calculated in the prevailing party's favor, and that Watson bore responsibility for the supplier debt with no amounts due to support the lien. The case was remanded solely to address a possible omitted credit for barn work.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved the conviction of defendant Duncan Ober for aggravated assault on Penny Morris, a class B felony. The sole issue was whether the victim's in-court identification of the defendant was tainted by due process violations arising from courtroom procedures at the start of trial, where the defendant stood and was identified in the victim's presence before she testified. The court overruled the defendant's exceptions, holding that the identification was admissible because it rested on independent grounds, including the victim's detailed pretrial description, her prompt and positive selection of the defendant's photo from a lineup hours after the incident, and her extended opportunity to observe the assailant during the assault. The decision emphasized evaluating the totality of circumstances to assess reliability rather than any suggestiveness in the trial confrontation itself.

criminal lawprocedure