NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The defendant, Michelle Chrisicos, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Groff, J.) sentencing her to twelve months in the House of Corrections, stand committed. The State cross-appeals, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that the home confinement provisions of RSA 262:23 (2004) (amended 2006) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, arts. 1, 2. We reverse the ruling that RSA 262:23 is unconstitutional and affirm the sentence.

BRODERICK, C.J. The petitioner, Town of Rindge, appeals an order of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) granting the respondent, Franklin Pierce University, a tax exemption under RSA 72:12-a (2003) (amended 2006) for its wastewater treatment facility. We affirm.

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Jay S. Weiner, appeals an order of the Hampton District Court (Frasier, J.) granting the request by the plaintiff, Rita MacPherson, to extend a final protective order for an additional five years. See RSA 633:3-a, III-c (2007). We affirm.

HICKS, J. The petitioners, who are various towns, legislators, candidates, voters and public officials, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) denying their request to declare that the New Hampshire House of Representatives’ current apportionment of districts is unconstitutional and to enjoin the 2008 primary and general elections. We affirm.

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.

HICKS, J. The petitioners brought this action in 2005 seeking a declaratory judgment that House Bill (HB) 616, the statute previously governing education funding and allocation, was unconstitutional. At the conclusion of the proceedings below, the Superior Court (Groff, J.) declared the legislation unconstitutional on its face because HB 616 “failed to fulfill [the State’s] duty to define a constitutionally adequate education, failed to determine the cost of an adequate education, . . . failed to satisfy the requirement of accountability, and . . . create[d] a non-uniform tax rate in violation of Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” Londonderry Sch. Dist. v. State, 154 N.H. 153, 155 (2006).

Before the court are identical motions filed by the Union Leader and Foster's Daily Democrat to unseal two previously sealed items of evidence: a collection of letters found in the home of the defendant, and a mental health evaluation report.

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 petitioners, Preston T. Kelsey, II, Virginia R. Kelsey, Dirk J. Van Leeuwen, Frank Holloway, Ann Holloway, Robert McLaughry and Ann McLaughry, appeal the decision of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) upholding the dismissal of their appeal of a zoning permit granted by the respondent, the Town of Hanover (Town), to Jerry and Claire Strochlic. We affirm.

Petitioners, Suzanne and Todd Adamcryck, bring this pro se appeal of the decision of the City of Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA" or "the Board") granting variance requests by the intervenor, Laconia Savings Bank ("LSB"). The City and LSB object to the relief requested by the petitioners. After hearing and upon consideration of the parties' oral and written arguments, the record, and applicable law, the Court finds and rules as follows.