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.

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.

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.

Inasmuch as the procedural history of this case is so unusual, it must be reviewed prior to the Court's ruling on the issues presented for determination. On September 2, 1993, the plaintiff brought suit against three defendants, Michael Hazen, Ralph Maxwell, and the Kingdom, Inc., on several legal theories as a result of her being sexually assaulted in June of 1977. She alleged that the assault was perpetrated by Defendant Hazen on property owned by Defendant The Kingdom, Inc., at a time when Defendant Maxwell was its minister.

The RNC and the NRSC, joined by the NHRSC, Tobin, and Dowd, seek to exclude the testimony of Dr. Kevin Arceneaux as an expert witness for the petitioners, arguing that his testimony does not meet the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as adopted in New Hampshire in Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand, Co., 148 N.H. 609, 613 (2002). The respondents offer three reasons why Dr. Arceneaux's testimony should be excluded: 1) his opinion is based on an incorrect definition of chattel; 2) he is not qualified to render an opinion as to damages; and 3) his testimony fails to meet the threshold reliability requirements of Baker Valley.

HICKS, J. The petitioners, Anheuser-Busch Company, Inc. (Anheuser) and ACE USA as its insurer, appeal a decision of the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (board) requiring them to pay disability benefits to the respondent, Douglas Bennett, following his knee replacement surgery in January 2006. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

HICKS, J. The defendant, Michael J. Labranche, Jr., appeals his first degree murder conviction. See RSA 630:1-a (2007). He argues that the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) erred by permitting the State’s expert psychiatrist to testify that the charged offense was not the product of his mental illness. We affirm.