NHCaseLaw.com

GALWAY, J. The juvenile, Kirsten P., appeals the order of the Claremont Family Division (Yazinski, J.) denying her motion to dismiss the delinquency petition against her. See RSA ch. 169-B (Supp. 2008). We affirm.

GALWAY, J. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) denying a motion to dismiss the indictments against the defendant, Walter Hutchinson. See Sup. Ct. R. 8. We affirm and remand.

GALWAY, J. The juvenile appeals the denial by the Colebrook Family Division (Michalik, J.) of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

LYNN, C.J. The defendant, George Daaboul, is charged with one count of using a computer on-line service to solicit a person he believed to be a child under age 16 to engage in sexual activity, in violation of RSA 649-B:4 (2007). The defendant has filed two motions to dismiss the indictment. The State objects. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED.

HICKS, J. The defendant, Robert Theriault, appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him. We affirm.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Peter Munoz, appeals his conviction following a jury trial for attempted burglary, see RSA 635:1 (2007); RSA 629:1 (2007), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash and to dismiss, and in permitting certain testimony. We affirm.

NADEAU, J. The State appeals the Trial Court’s (Fitzgerald, J.) dismissal of an indictment against the defendant, George Knickerbocker, Jr., for second degree murder. We reverse and remand.

The defendant, Cindy Grant-Chase, was convicted by a jury of criminal solicitation of the crime of solicitation to murder, see RSA 629:2, I (1996). On appeal, she argues that the Superior Court (Lynn, J.) erroneously denied her motion to dismiss the indictment. We affirm.

Defendant is charged with one count of second degree assault with a deadly weapon contrary to RSA 631:2(b) and four counts of reckless conduct with a deadly weapon contrary to RSA 631:3, II. Defendant moves to dismiss each of these charges for failing to allege criminal acts under New Hampshire's Criminal Code. Alternatively, defendant argues that the statutes under which he is charged are unconstitutionally vague. The State objects. After hearing and after significant consideration of the parties' arguments with the applicable law, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Defendant is charged with one count of violating RSA 632-A:10 (“the child-care prohibition statute”) for coaching his five year-old daughter’s T-Ball team. He moves to dismiss the indictment, asserting due process violations based on lack of notice and statutory overbreadth, and ignorance or mistake of law. The court held a hearing on this matter on April 11, 2003. Based on the parties’ arguments, submissions and the relevant law, the court finds and rules as follows.