John W. King

This case involved a debt collection action by Mast Road Grain & Building Materials Co. against Ray Piet, Inc. and its officers, including Ella Piet as guarantor, under a credit agreement that imposed a 24% annual finance charge on unpaid balances. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 24% interest from the date of demand until payment, but the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed that portion of the ruling. The court interpreted the credit agreement to mean that the contractual 24% rate accrued only up to the date of demand for immediate payment (treated as the filing of suit on November 17, 1981), after which remedies were limited to collection costs and attorney's fees. It held that, absent a clear contractual provision extending the higher rate post-demand, statutory interest at 10% under RSA 336:1 and RSA 524:1-a applies once litigation begins to prove and collect the debt.

business & regulatory

The case involved Joseph Toto's conviction for unauthorized possession of a narcotic drug after police found prescription drugs in his possession while he was in protective custody for intoxication. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the inventory search of the defendant's garbage bag was permissible under state law to reduce the likelihood of injury and did not violate due process. However, the court vacated the extended sentence because the defendant had not received prior notice of the possible application of the extended term statute as required, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Edward Stiles, a cab driver charged with two counts of theft by unauthorized taking and one count of attempted theft after he accompanied 81-year-old Frances George to multiple bank branches in January 1981 and withdrew thousands of dollars in cash from her account by stating she needed the money for bills, relocation, or transfer to another bank. The trial court denied pretrial motions to dismiss and found Stiles competent to stand trial, resulting in convictions on all counts. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed one theft conviction because the indictment failed to provide enough factual detail to notify the defendant of the specific charge, affirmed the remaining convictions after rejecting challenges to certain testimony and the victim's identification at trial, and remanded for a new competency determination because the trial court had applied an incorrect standard that did not match the Dusky test for the defendant's ability to understand proceedings and assist counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether New Hampshire's RSA chapter 483-A gave the state Wetlands Board exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving state waters, thereby barring private lawsuits for violations of common-law riparian rights. Plaintiffs, downstream landowners, sued defendants who had dredged a channel to divert the Cockermouth River without a permit, alleging damage to their property; the superior court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute did not clearly abrogate common-law rights to sue for unlawful diversions and that the board's regulatory authority over permits and penalties did not extend to resolving private riparian disputes when no prior authorization had been sought. The court rejected arguments based on primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies, noting the statute provided no administrative path for such claims. It remanded the case for trial on the merits.

environmentpropertyprocedure

In State v. Harlow, the New Hampshire Supreme Court considered an interlocutory transfer from the district court regarding the handling and search of a person taken into protective custody under RSA chapter 172-B after police observed him walking unsteadily and determined he was intoxicated and incapacitated. The defendant was pat-searched, transported to jail, and had his wallet searched during booking, which revealed LSD capsules leading to drug possession charges; he moved to suppress the evidence, arguing violations of the statute and constitutions. The court held that police were not required to exhaust all other options before lodging an incapacitated person in jail but failed to meet additional statutory requirements under RSA 172-B:3, II and III, and that the wallet search exceeded the statute's limits allowing searches only for identification and to prevent injury. The court concluded the search violated RSA 172-B:3, VII, so the evidence must be suppressed, without reaching constitutional questions. Remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce four of the defendant's prior criminal convictions (for issuing a bad check, disobeying a police officer, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest) to impeach her credibility if she testified at her misdemeanor theft trial. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the conviction. The court explained that New Hampshire law permits the introduction of prior convictions for impeachment in the trial court's discretion to allow the jury to assess the defendant's credibility when she chooses to testify. It further held that convictions need not directly involve dishonesty to be admissible, as they may reflect a general contempt for the law, and that the potential effect of discouraging the defendant from testifying does not render the ruling improper.

criminal lawprocedure