NHCaseLaw.com

DALIANIS, J. The defendant, Dante Silva, appeals his conviction after a jury trial in Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) on one count of dispensing a controlled drug with death resulting, see RSA 318-B:26, IX (2004), arguing that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him; and (2) his rights under Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution to confront witnesses against him were violated when the State failed to produce the laboratory technician who tested the victim’s blood. We affirm.

DALIANIS, J. Pursuant to RSA 606:10 (2001), the State appeals an order of the Hooksett District Court (LaPointe, J.) dismissing a complaint against the defendant, Evelyn Bernard, for failure to obey a command at the scene of an emergency. See RSA 154:9 (2002). We reverse and remand.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Peter Clark, appeals his convictions for possession of child pornography, see RSA 649-A:3 (2007), following a bench trial in Superior Court (O’Neill, J.) We affirm.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Christopher Legere, was convicted following a jury trial in Superior Court (McGuire, J.) of the second degree murder of John Denoncourt. See RSA 630:1-b, I(a), I(b) (2007). He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of various witnesses. We affirm.

DALIANIS, J. The respondent, Jacqueline Salesky, appeals the final decree in her divorce from the petitioner, John Salesky, which was recommended by a Marital Master (Forrest, M.) and approved by the Superior Court (Hampsey, J.). We affirm.

Before the Court are several Motions in Limine seeking to exclude certain evidence and testimony, of certain witnesses. A hearing was held on November 29, 2007. By agreement, counsel appeared telephonically. The Court enters the following orders with respect to each motion.

This order addresses the defendants' three pending motions in limine; the first, a motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony of other alleged retaliation, harassment, and/or termination beyond that alleged by the plaintiff, Jill Davidson; the second, a motion in limine to preclude expert witness testimony of Julie Moore; Esq.; and the third, an objection to the addendum and revised report submitted by Ms. Moore. The Court will address each in turn. The Court ruled from the bench during trial on these motions. This order affirms and supercedes the oral ruling.

HICKS, J. The plaintiff, Estate of Marcus R. Sicotte (the Estate), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Houran, J.) dismissing its legal malpractice case against the defendant law firm, Lubin & Meyer, P.C. (L&M). We affirm.

Pending before the court is the defendant Frederick Allfrey's Motion in Limine to Limit Damages (court index 64), to which the plaintiff objects (court index 67). By his motion, the defendant seeks to exclude from damages any amount written off by the plaintiffs insurer.

This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Philip J. ("Philip") and Catherine ("Catherine") Sica, against the defendants, John C. Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton") anal Surgical Associates of Rochester, P.C. The plaintiffs allege Dr. Britton negligently performed a surgery on Philip, causing injuries and losses to Philip and loss of consortium to Catherine. The defendants now move in limine to preclude the plaintiffs from introducing medical expenses written off by Philip's medical care providers. The plaintiffs object. Neither party has requested a hearing on this motion in limine, nor does the court find that a hearing would assist it in determining the pending issue. Accordingly, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 58, the court acts on the pending motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.