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.

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.

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 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.

This order addresses defendant’s motions to suppress incriminating evidence and statements the State obtained from him pursuant to an allegedly illegal search and interrogation. The court held a hearing on these matters on March 26, 2002. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the relevant law, and the evidence presented at hearing, the court GRANTS defendant’s motions.

The defendant, William Wood, is charged with two (2) counts of possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell and two (2) counts of possession of a controlled drug. Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search and seizure which forms the basis for the charges. I conclude that the motion must be granted.

The defendant, Patrick O’Neill, stands charged with two counts of possession of cocaine. See RSA 318-B:2; RSA 318-B:26(I)(c)(1). He moves the court to suppress evidence the police obtained during a search of his vehicle on August 19, 2006, arguing that the traffic stop leading to the search was illegal from the outset. In addition, the defendant argues that even assuming the legality of the initial traffic stop, the police improperly expanded the investigative scope of that stop, thereby tainting his subsequent consent to a search. The court held a hearing on this matter on April 2, 2007. After considering the evidence, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the defendant’s motion is GRANTED for reasons stated in this order.

The defendant, Brett K. Cronin, has been indicted by the grand jury on a charge of aggravated driving while intoxicated. Because the indictment alleges that, while so driving, Cronin caused a collision resulting in serious bodily injury, the offense is a class B felony.