Robert Frederick Griffith

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of theft of less than $100 and witness tampering. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of three prior felony convictions from ten years earlier, when he was seventeen, as evidence of credibility, and the trial court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting the convictions after weighing their probative value against prejudice, and that the reasonable doubt instruction, when read as a whole, correctly conveyed the legal standard and was not prejudicial despite one criticized phrase. The court overruled the exceptions and affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Colby, the defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to murder a witness who had accused him and a codefendant of rape. The New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed multiple issues raised by the defendant, including the trial court's handling of jury voir dire questions, the admission of evidence regarding statements and actions by club members, the denial of requested jury instructions on conspiracy elements, and the application of an extended-term sentencing statute. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence sufficiently established the defendant's agreement and participation in the conspiracy, that the jury instructions adequately covered the relevant legal standards, and that the sentencing provision for exceptional cruelty or depravity applied to inchoate offenses like conspiracy. It also confirmed the proper calculation of the concurrent sentence without credit for time before the conspiracy was formed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Allstate Insurance v. Reserve Insurance, excess insurer Allstate sued primary insurer Reserve after Reserve defended an auto accident case that resulted in a $30,000 verdict and allegedly failed to settle within its $15,000 policy limits, forcing Allstate to pay the balance under its excess policy. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that Allstate could pursue the claim against Reserve on the basis of the insured's assignment of rights, even though no direct duty ran from Reserve to Allstate. The court reasoned that an insurer owes its insured a duty of due care in settling claims, that such tort claims are assignable, and that the excess carrier's payment under its own policy does not bar recovery via subrogation or assignment. On rehearing the court confirmed that standard policy subrogation clauses support the action and that prior precedent on assignment remains controlling.

torts & liability

The case involved defendant Martineau, who was tried with a codefendant and convicted by jury of conspiracy to murder and criminal solicitation related to the killing of Wanda Graham, a witness in a prior rape case against them and other members of the Die Hard Motorcycle Club. Martineau challenged the trial court's admission of evidence including police testimony about the victim's complaint, a sketch of the club's emblem, and his own out-of-court statements, as well as the imposition of an extended prison sentence under RSA 651:6. The New Hampshire Supreme Court overruled these exceptions, ruling that the testimony was admissible for the limited purpose of showing motive despite hearsay concerns, the emblem sketch was relevant circumstantial evidence, the defendant's statements qualified as admissions, and no prosecutorial recommendation was required for the sentence. The court referenced the facts and related holdings from the companion case State v. Colby.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition to confirm an arbitration award under RSA 542:8 arising from claims between Davis Associates, Inc. and the Laurions under a construction contract, which had been submitted to arbitrators designated by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrators awarded the plaintiff a lump sum of $73,152.33, with part payable immediately and the rest retained pending completion of work, without itemizing claims or making explicit rulings on issues such as substantial completion or loss-of-use damages. The defendants sought to modify or correct the award on grounds of plain mistake due to the lack of detail, but a master found that the parties' evidence on those issues had been submitted and presumed considered, and the superior court approved confirmation of the award. The court held that arbitrators are not required to detail their reasoning or rule on each claim separately and overruled the defendants' exceptions.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs seeking a zoning variance to divide a beachfront property, zoned for single-family dwellings, into four separate units owned and occupied by four couples. The Rye Beach Village District Zoning Board denied the variance, but the trial court found the denial unreasonable and granted it. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the board's and that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving the board's decision was unjust or unreasonable under the applicable statute. The court emphasized that findings of the zoning board are prima facie lawful and reasonable, and appeals are not de novo trials.

propertyprocedure