NHCaseLaw.com

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.

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.

DUGGAN, J. The minor plaintiff, Shelby Baxter, by and through her mother and next friend, Patricia Baxter, appeals the exclusion by the Trial Court (Hollman, J.) of two expert witnesses in her negligence action against the defendants, Charles and Kelly Temple. The exclusion of these witnesses resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

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.

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.