NHCaseLaw.com

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.

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.

Pursuant to RSA 606:10 (2001), the State appeals the decision of the Superior Court (Coffey, J.) to exclude expert testimony concerning the identification of a fingerprint of the defendant, Richard Langill. We reverse and remand.

The defendant is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Robert Provencher. Before the Court is the defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Allegations of Homosexual Relationships in which the defendant requests that the Court exclude any evidence that he and Mr. Provencher were involved in a homosexual relationship and any evidence that he is a homosexual. The State objects. The Court held a hearing on this matter on February 28, 2002. For the reasons stated below, the defendant's motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The defendant, Stephen Mann, is charged with one count of first degree murder for the alleged shooting death of his wife. Presently before the court are the parties’ motions in limine regarding the admissibility of an audio recording of a 911 call made to the police by the defendant’s daughter. The State’s seeks admission of the recording; the defendant seeks its exclusion from evidence. I conclude that a portion of the recording must be redacted but that, as redacted, the recording is admissible whether or not the daughter testifies at trial.