NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The defendant, Sean McGurk, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Burling, J.) denying his: (1) motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) motion challenging his conviction as violating double jeopardy; and (3) motion for new trial and to withdraw guilty plea based upon the discovery of new evidence. We affirm.

The defendant has filed three motions to suppress various statements he made to Boston and Manchester police officers. The State objects to all three motions. The Court held a hearing on the motions on June 30 and July 1, 2008, and heard the testimony of eight Boston police officers and two Manchester police officers. After considering the evidence, the parties' arguments and relevant legal precedent, the defendant's Motion to Suppress #1 is DENIED as to the background questions and GRANTED as to the defendant's confession to the Manchester police detectives; Motion to Suppress #2 is DENIED; and Motion to Suppress-#3 is MOOT in light of the defendant's confession being suppressed.

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendant, Luis A. Rodriguez, appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) denying his motion to suppress evidence of his possession of controlled drugs, discovered as a result of a warrantless entry by the police into his hotel room. We affirm.

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.

BRODERICK, C.J. After a jury trial in Superior Court (Hicks, J.), the defendant, William Joseph Sullivan, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder, see RSA 630:1-a (2007), and conspiracy to commit murder, see id.; RSA 629:3 (2007). He appeals his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of self-incriminating statements he made to members of the Nashua Police Department, and by dismissing and replacing a member of his jury after the commencement of deliberations. We reverse and remand.

The defendant, Kendrick Hoskins, is charged with one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one count of possession of crack cocaine, and one count of resisting detention. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of an investigative stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. I conclude that the motion must be denied.

The defendant, Shawn Proulx, is charged with one count of possession of a controlled drug with the intent to sell. He moves to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure, The State objects. The Court held a hearing on this motion on March 10, 2008. The Court heard the testimony of Lieutenant Paul Poirier (`Lieutenant Poirier"), Officer Thomas Prentice (”Officer Prentice"), Detective Scott Park ("Detective Park"), Dispatcher James Connelly ("Dispatcher Connelly") of the Merrimack Police Department as well as Stephanie Hooper ("Hooper") from The Telegraph and the defendant. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.

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 defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his seizure, asserting that he was illegally seized in violation of his rights under part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the defendant contends that the police officers did not have the necessary "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to seize his vehicle and requests that all evidence obtained as a result of that seizure be suppressed. The State objects. The relevant facts are as follows.

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.