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

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of statutory rape under the then-effective RSA 632:1 I (c) for having sexual intercourse with a female under age fifteen who was not his wife, resulting in a prison sentence later reduced by the Sentence Review Board. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous for not requiring proof that he knew the victim's age and that the statute violated equal protection and due process by applying only to male perpetrators. The court held that trial counsel's failure to object to the instructions waived the issue, and even if considered, the record showed the defendant knew the victim's age. It further ruled that the statute's gender classification was reasonable and constitutional, citing factors like potential pregnancy, and dismissed the appeal.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a divorced father's obligation to continue child support payments for his daughter Lee Ann after she turned eighteen. The 1972 divorce decree required support until the children were emancipated or reached age twenty-one, and the father argued that the 1973 statutory reduction of the age of majority to eighteen terminated his duty by operation of law. The Superior Court granted the mother's petition to continue payments, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the decree's specific reference to age twenty-one distinguished emancipation from reaching majority, that the legislature did not clearly intend the change to apply retroactively to existing decrees, and that the original intent was to support the children's education regardless of fluctuations in the age of majority.

family law

The case involved four inmates at the State prison who were charged under RSA 642:7 II with knowingly possessing or making items that could facilitate escape, including jackknife blades, a knife-like instrument, explosive device components, and a dummy. The defendants moved to dismiss their indictments, arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of due process. The court denied the motions, holding that the statute provides fair notice and is not vague as applied to the defendants' conduct involving weapons and escape materials that any reasonable person would recognize as prohibited. It reasoned that the statute need not achieve mathematical precision and that the knowledge requirement further clarifies its scope, overruling the exceptions and remanding the cases.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a legal malpractice claim where the plaintiffs alleged that their attorney negligently failed to prosecute a breach of contract claim against the U.S. Forest Service, resulting in the claim being barred by the statute of limitations. The court addressed whether the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' malpractice action, which was filed more than six years after the original claim expired. The court held that the cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered through reasonable diligence that their claim was barred. The reasoning extends the discovery rule from medical malpractice cases to legal malpractice, based on the client's necessary reliance on the professional and the hidden nature of the negligence.

proceduretorts & liability

In Murphy v. Murphy, the plaintiff filed for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences under RSA 458:7-a, the defendant filed a cross-libel on the same grounds, and both parties agreed the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The trial court excluded evidence of the defendant's alleged misconduct, granted the divorce to the defendant, and ordered an equal division of net property proceeds after debts plus $25 weekly alimony to the plaintiff. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the statute generally bars evidence of specific misconduct in no-fault divorces when determining alimony or property division, except in limited circumstances like child custody, to reduce acrimony. The court upheld the property division but found the alimony award unsupported by evidence of the plaintiff's health limitations, earning capacity, the marriage's length, and the defendant's income, and remanded for reconsideration of alimony.

family lawproperty

This case involved a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under an insurance policy for injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by an unknown driver who did not make physical contact. The trial court dismissed the claim based on the policy's physical contact requirement for hit-and-run coverage. The court held that the policy provision was invalid because the state statute, RSA 268:15-a, mandates coverage for all hit-and-run accidents without requiring physical contact, and insurance policies cannot restrict this compulsory protection. The decision reasoned that the statutory language covers all persons legally entitled to recover damages from hit-and-run vehicles, and the common meaning of "hit-and-run" does not necessitate physical contact.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a ten-year-old plaintiff who suffered burns after stepping on hot coals while on the defendant's property during an unsupervised rubbish fire that he had permitted; she and her father sued for personal injuries and consequential damages. The defendant moved for nonsuit, arguing that the child was at best a licensee to whom he owed no duty regarding known hazards, while the plaintiffs urged abandonment of entrant-status categories. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the traditional common-law distinctions among trespassers, licensees, and invitees no longer solely determine a landowner's duty and instead applied ordinary negligence principles requiring reasonable care under all the circumstances. Its reasoning drew on the earlier Sargent v. Ross decision abolishing landlord immunity, noted the erosion of rigid classifications over time due to industrialization and modern tort doctrine, and concluded that a single standard better serves contemporary needs for safety and fairness.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a challenge to the validity of a zoning ordinance amendment in the town of Greenland, where a protest petition was filed claiming to represent 20% of the affected area, which would have required a two-thirds vote for passage under state law. The town moderator ruled the petition invalid due to insufficient acreage or proper signatures, allowing the amendment to pass by simple majority. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment, arguing the petition should have triggered the higher voting threshold. The court held that under RSA 31:78, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the moderator's decision unreasonable or unlawful, and that merely introducing the petition ruled invalid by town officials does not overcome the statutory presumption favoring the municipal decision. The court declined to advise on the specific evidence needed to meet that burden and remanded the case.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendants convicted in district court of driving under the influence of alcohol, who sought to suppress breathalyzer test results on grounds that the State failed to preserve the ampoules used in the tests, claiming this violated a statute and due process rights. The court overruled the defendants' exceptions, upholding the admissibility of the test results and the convictions. It reasoned that the relevant statute requires preservation only of blood and urine samples, not breathalyzer ampoules, which are not easily preservable and pose safety risks, and that due process was satisfied by existing testing procedures and the option for defendants to obtain their own tests. The court distinguished precedents from other jurisdictions based on factual differences in ampoule handling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Edward J. Bennett's challenge to his dismissal as director of New Hampshire's division of economic development by the Governor and Executive Council after a public speech in which he criticized a proposed pulp mill project. Bennett had been appointed to a fixed term and was subject to supervision by the department commissioner; the Governor and Council removed him under RSA 4:1 for making statements contrary to official policy and prior instructions, finding the action was for the good of the department. The court examined Bennett's claim that the dismissal violated his First Amendment rights by applying the Pickering balancing test, weighing the employee's interest in speaking on matters of public concern against the government's interest in maintaining discipline, efficiency, and loyalty among public employees. The core reasoning focused on the statutory duties of the division, the context of the speech, and whether any proven disruption to operations or public confidence outweighed the value of open debate on an issue of significant economic and environmental importance to the state.

free speechlabor & employment

The Town of Seabrook sued the D'Agatas to block construction of a storage room addition to their dwelling, which already violated zoning rules on lot size, setbacks, and permitted number of family units as a preexisting nonconforming use. The court held that the enclosed carport addition did not expand the nonconforming aspects of the property because it added no living space, did not worsen lot or setback issues, and was a use otherwise allowed in the zone. The ruling permitted the structure but required the owners to obtain a building permit, as the addition increased the dwelling's value by more than $500. The decision rested on precedent interpreting zoning ordinances to protect the owners' original vested rights without allowing expansions of nonconforming features.

property

The case involved a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for attempted capital murder of a police officer, following amendments to New Hampshire's criminal code that introduced categories of murder including capital murder punishable by death. The trial court reserved the legal questions and transferred them to the Supreme Court. The court rejected the motion, holding that the attempt statute (RSA 629:1 IV) applies to all forms of murder and that the subsequent classification of murder did not remove capital murder from its coverage. It further ruled that the capital murder statute was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder and that the defendant, not facing the death penalty, could not challenge its constitutionality in advance of trial. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a widow's petition for certiorari challenging the New Hampshire Retirement System Board's denial of optional retirement benefits under RSA 100-A:13 after her husband, a teacher and system member, elected Option 2 benefits but died nine days before his designated retirement date. The Board had awarded only the ordinary death benefit, interpreting the statute to require an effective election on the retirement date. The court granted the petition and held that the election was effective upon the member's death, entitling the widow to the higher Option 2 amount. The core reasoning was that the statutory language following the semicolon, including the exception for death before the sixty-day period, would otherwise be meaningless, so it must accelerate the effective date when the member dies before retirement.

labor & employment

The case involved a buyer who purchased a mobile home park and later sued the seller for damages after discovering that several septic systems had failed, alleging that the seller's agent had misrepresented their condition during negotiations and failed to disclose subsequent state investigations revealing problems. The trial court, following a master's recommendation, entered a verdict for the buyer in the amount of $4,894.25 based on findings of fraudulent nondisclosure. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a seller who makes a representation that later becomes false due to new information has a duty to disclose that information before closing, that the buyer's reliance was justified given the seller's superior knowledge, and that a standard merger clause in the sales contract does not bar claims of extrinsic fraud. The court rejected arguments that the buyer had a duty to investigate or that inconclusive early tests relieved the seller of disclosure obligations.

propertytorts & liability