NHCaseLaw.com

GALWAY, J. The State appeals the order of the Superior Court (Barry, J.) granting the motion to suppress filed by the defendant, Joseph Panarello. We affirm and remand.

THAYER, J. The defendant, David Cobb, appeals his conviction for one charge of attempted felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:3, III (1996) and RSA 629:1 (1996), fifty-three charges of exhibiting or displaying child pornography, RSA 649-A:3, I(c) (1996 & Supp. 1998), and 267 charges of possessing child pornography, RSA 649-A:3, III(a) (1996), alleging numerous errors by the Trial Court (Nadeau, C.J.).

The defendant is charged with one count of Manufacture of a Controlled Drug and one count of Possession of LSD. He seeks to suppress statements he made to the New York State Police on July 20, 1999, claiming the police failed to secure a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. In addition, he claims the statements he made were not the product of his rational intellect or free will, and thus were involuntary. As a result, he seeks to suppress evidence the police collected from his home in Rochester as fruits of the illegally obtained statements. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendant's motion is granted.

The defendants are each charged with two counts of Possession of a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, with Intent to Sell or Dispense, and one count of Controlling Premises where a Controlled Drug, Marijuana, was Illegally Kept or Deposited. See RSA 318-B:26 (Supp. 2001). The defendants move to suppress the physical evidence obtained during an allegedly unlawful search of their residence. Having considered the evidence and the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion.

The defendant, Jason Fuller, is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, theft by unauthorized taking and receiving stolen property. The charges all arise out of the defendant's alleged participation in the December 5, 2000 burglary of the residence of Chester Chmiola at 56 Grant Street, Manchester. Among the items taken in the burglary were a Baretta handgun and two (2) two- dollar bills. Presently before the court are the following pretrial motions filed by the defendant: (1) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4); (2) Motion to Suppress Statement (Doc. #5); and Motion to Suppress (Doc. #6). After reciting the pertinent facts, I address the motions in turn, concluding that the second motion must be granted while the first and third must be denied.

The defendants are each charged with one count of theft by receiving stolen property, one count of conspiracy to commit burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and two counts of cruelty to animals. The allegations arose in connection with the drowning of a miniature dachshund dog, which allegedly occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on May 18, 2004. The defendants now move to suppress all evidence the police obtained after their vehicles were stopped at the Dairy Queen in Kittery, Maine, alleging that the police were prohibited from relying on information contained in certain emails to effectuate the stops. Specifically, they claim the emails were obtained in violation of the wiretap statute and thus, any evidence derived from the emails must be suppressed. The State objects. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendants’ motions are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The defendant, Stephen Mann, is charged with one count of first degree murder for allegedly shooting his wife to death. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to Canadian police authorities on July 20, and 23, 2004. I conclude that the motion must be denied.

The defendant, Eric Windhurst, is charged with one count of first degree murder for allegedly shooting Daniel Paquette to death on or about November 9, 1985. The State alleges that the defendant committed this crime while accompanied by Melanie Cooper, Paquette’s step-daughter. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress consensually recorded telephone conversations between Cooper and the defendant which were obtained by the New Hampshire State Police on various dates in July 2004. The court heard argument on the motion on June 23, 2006. I conclude that the motion is lacking in merit and must be denied.