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

Voters in the town of Hudson petitioned the selectmen to include an article on the March 1976 town meeting warrant that would require subdividers to post performance bonds for required improvements before building permits could be issued. The selectmen refused to insert the article, but the superior court ordered them to do so; the article was later tabled at the meeting. The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated the superior court's order, ruling that RSA chapter 36 gives planning boards exclusive jurisdiction over subdivision regulations including performance bonds, so the town meeting could not validly impose additional or inconsistent requirements in that area. The court also noted that the planning board's regulation improperly delegated bond authority to the selectmen, contrary to the statute.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a petition for partition of real estate in Derry, New Hampshire, between parents (plaintiffs) and their son and daughter-in-law (defendants), arising from a 1968 purchase of a house titled in the son's name under a GI loan but funded and improved by the parents at a cost exceeding $20,000. A prior 1973 decree granting the parents a life estate was never carried out, leading to the partition action and sale of the property for over $22,400. The trial court awarded $20,000 of the proceeds to the parents for reimbursement of their expenditures, and the Supreme Court overruled the defendants' exceptions to this distribution. The court reasoned that the parents' interest was equitable, that partition allows equitable division of proceeds based on actual contributions to prevent unjust enrichment, and that the prior unfulfilled stipulation did not bar such relief since the defendants sought to vacate it.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the validity of a search warrant used to seize marijuana from the defendant Ginnie Gilson, who was charged with possession of a controlled drug. The defendant argued that the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause because it relied on an informant's statement without sufficient corroboration or credibility details. The court held that the warrant was valid, as the affidavit included the informant's observations corroborated by police actions, the officer's personal knowledge of the companion's drug use, and the detection of marijuana odor during a lawful stop, all of which supported probable cause. The court reasoned that the police procedures followed were reasonable and did not require suppression of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over approximately fifty acres of real estate in Keene, New Hampshire, that Kenneth Cornwell transferred first to his wife Irene and then to his brother Paul amid financial difficulties and a pending wrongful death judgment against Kenneth. The Superior Court imposed a constructive trust on the property in favor of Kenneth's estate, based on findings of a confidential family relationship and an understanding that Paul would reconvey the land once Kenneth's finances improved, while requiring reimbursement to Paul for expenses. Paul appealed, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to issue supplemental findings after transfer to the Supreme Court, the sufficiency of evidence for the confidential relationship, and application of the unclean hands doctrine due to the original conveyance. The Supreme Court overruled the exceptions, determining that the trial court retained jurisdiction to aid the appeal, the family ties and evidence supported the trust, and unclean hands did not bar relief because Paul was not prejudiced as a creditor.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a father charged with abducting his three-year-old daughter in New Hampshire with intent to conceal her from the mother, who held temporary custody under a court order. The defendant claimed the mother had consented to him taking the child for an extended period, and evidence showed conflicting accounts of any agreement. The trial court instructed the jury that the mother's custody was lawful even against the father and that the child could not consent, without clarifying how the mother's consent might negate the required intent to conceal. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that maternal consent, if found, constituted a defense under the statute and that the jury instructions failed to provide adequate guidance on this point, warranting reversal and a new trial; it also ruled that certain evidence of the mother's post-arrest statements was admissible to impeach her testimony.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a petition by the defendant mother to modify a 1971 divorce decree that had awarded custody of the couple's four minor children to the plaintiff father. The Superior Court approved a master's recommendation to transfer custody to the mother, and the father appealed, arguing that the decision violated the standards set in Perreault v. Cook for modifying custody orders. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the transfer, ruling that the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration and that the record showed sufficient changes in circumstances, including the mother's improved emotional and professional situation as well as evidence of neglect in the children's hygiene, school attendance, and living conditions under the father's care. The court found that the master's determination that the benefits of the change outweighed risks of disruption was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

family law

In State v. Martin, the defendant was arrested without a warrant by a state trooper who found him asleep in the driver's seat of a vehicle with its motor running and lights off on the side of a highway, smelling of alcohol; a subsequent breathalyzer test yielded a reading of 0.12, leading to his conviction for attempting to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence. The defendant moved to suppress the breathalyzer evidence on the ground that the warrantless arrest was invalid because the misdemeanor was not committed in the officer's presence under RSA 594:10 I, but the trial court denied the motion. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the admission of the evidence, holding that the agreed facts established probable cause for the arrest since the defendant's presence in the vehicle with the motor running amounted to conduct constituting a substantial step toward operating while intoxicated, an ongoing attempt that the officer could observe.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Raymond and Pauline Remillard against New England Telephone Company for personal injuries and related damages from a 1970 car accident in Derry, New Hampshire. Mrs. Remillard lost control of her vehicle after swerving to avoid a telephone company truck partially blocking the eastbound lane near the crest of a hill, striking a tree. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs damages following a jury verdict, but the New Hampshire Supreme Court sustained the defendant's exception to the jury instructions on the emergency doctrine. The court held that the charge erroneously suggested a plaintiff could not be liable for choosing the wrong course of action in an emergency without adequately conveying the continuing duty to exercise reasonable care, and that it improperly invoked elements of the instinctive action doctrine inapplicable on these facts where the plaintiff had several seconds to react. The court ordered a new trial, while upholding the exclusion of certain tires offered as evidence due to insufficient proof they were the same ones on the vehicle at the time of the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a zoning board's decision granting a special exception to allow construction of a house with a retail variety store in a residential zone in Derry, New Hampshire. The court ruled that the proposed business use did not qualify as an "accessory use" under the local zoning ordinance, which permits such exceptions only if the business is subordinate to the primary residential use and occupies no more than 25% of the area. The decision was based on evidence that the owner did not intend to reside on the property, the store would operate extended hours with significant parking, and the business appeared to be the primary purpose rather than incidental to residence.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the State of New Hampshire bringing an antitrust enforcement action against the New Hampshire Retail Grocers Association under RSA 356 for alleged attempts to coerce manufacturers into not selling baked goods at thrift stores. The association resisted a discovery order for documents, seeking immediate interlocutory review via certiorari on the grounds that the statute's penalties were criminal in nature and that producing records would implicate self-incrimination rights. The New Hampshire Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, ruling that the association as a corporate entity had no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and could not assert one on behalf of its officers, with no showing of irreparable harm that would warrant pre-trial review. The court held that any issues could be addressed adequately after a full trial on the merits.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a tort action in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict of $48,351 against defendants Delaney and Davis; after the verdict the plaintiff settled with Davis for $25,000 while reserving rights against Delaney, and a separate $1,000 settlement had been reached with another party before trial. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff could recover interest on the full verdict from the date of the writ until the verdict date and that the post-verdict Davis settlement should be deducted from the judgment amount. On appeal the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that common-law principles required deduction of the pre-verdict Mackey settlement from the damages awarded, affirmed the interest ruling because the Davis settlement was presumed to cover that defendant's share of interest and costs, and initially overruled the defendant's objections, but on rehearing remanded the Mackey-settlement issue for further findings in the superior court while affirming the remaining rulings.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the University of New Hampshire's attempt in state court to limit the activities of its recognized Gay Students Organization (GSO) by arguing that homosexuality is a mental disorder or illness justifying restrictions on social events. After the GSO obtained a federal district court judgment (later affirmed) protecting its rights to organize and function on campus under the First Amendment and equal protection, the university sought to amend its state petition to raise the mental disorder issue. The New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed whether res judicata from the federal declaratory judgment barred relitigation of that issue in state court. The court held that the federal judgment was conclusive because the mental disorder claim could have been raised as a defense in the federal action, which had fully resolved the parties' rights, and therefore precluded the university's amended state complaint.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

This case concerned whether Peerless Insurance Company was obligated to defend and indemnify James Vigue under an automobile liability policy issued to his wife Irene for property damage arising from a 1967 collision, despite an endorsement excluding coverage when James operated the vehicle due to his revoked license. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the insurer must provide coverage and defend the underlying action. The court reasoned that RSA chapter 268, the Financial Responsibility Act, mandates liability policies to indemnify insureds—including resident spouses—for negligent operation of the covered vehicle without regard to licensing status, and that contractual endorsements conflicting with the statute are invalid under RSA 268:16 II. The exclusion was therefore unenforceable, though the remainder of the policy remained intact, and James Vigue qualified as an insured.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Dean, the defendant was adjudged a habitual offender under New Hampshire law and later convicted for driving in violation of a four-year prohibition order, triggering the mandatory sentencing requirements of RSA 262-B:7. The defendant challenged the one-to-five-year prison term without possibility of suspension, arguing it represented an unconstitutional legislative interference with judicial sentencing discretion and violated prohibitions on disproportionate or cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire upheld the mandatory sentence, ruling that the legislature possesses the power to define crimes and prescribe fixed punishments, including mandatory minimum terms that override general statutory authority to suspend sentences. The court determined that the specific, later-enacted provision of the Habitual Offenders Act controlled over conflicting earlier statutes and did not violate constitutional limits on punishment.

criminal law