Jury Instructions

State v. Balliro, 2007-500 (N.H. S.Ct., Oct. 30, 2008)

HICKS, J. The defendant, Anthony Balliro, appeals a ruling by the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) denying a jury instruction for the justified use of deadly force to “prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson.” See RSA 627:7 (2007). We affirm.

Hallam and Laramine v. Stone and Connor, 06-C-224, 06-C-225 (Merrimack, Sep. 30, 2008)

On May 19, 2008, a jury returned verdicts against the above-named defendants and awarded damages to Plaintiffs Hallam and Laramie in the amounts of $1.3 million and $650,000, respectively. Before the court is the defendants' motion to apply the statutory cap on liability pursuant to RSA 541-B:14. The court held a hearing on this matter on July 23, 2008. After consideration of the parties' oral and written submissions and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

State v. Johnson, 2005-625 (N.H. S.Ct., Jun. 27, 2008)

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Peter Johnson, appeals his conviction in Superior Court (Lewis, J.) for driving while intoxicated, second offense. See RSA 265:82 (2004) (repealed and replaced by RSA 265-A:2 (Supp. 2007)); RSA 265:82-b (2004) (repealed and replaced by RSA 265-A:18 (Supp. 2007)). The defendant argues that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and in its answer to a question from the jury during its deliberations. We affirm.

Clark & Lavey Benefits Solutions, Inc. v. Education Development Center, Inc., 2007-423 (N.H. S.Ct., May. 2, 2008)

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), appeals, and the plaintiff, Clark & Lavey Benefits Solutions, Inc. (C&L), crossappeals, from rulings of the Trial Court (Groff, J.). We affirm.

State v. Evans, 2002-287 (N.H. S.Ct., Dec. 30, 2003)

BROCK, C.J. The defendant, Chad Evans, was convicted of reckless second-degree murder, see RSA 630:1-b (1996), five counts of second-degree assault, see RSA 631:2 (1996), endangering the welfare of a minor, see RSA 639:3, I (1996), and simple assault, see RSA 631:2-a (1996), following the death of twenty-one-month-old Kassidy Bortner, the daughter of his girlfriend, Amanda Bortner. He appeals, arguing that: (1) the Superior Court (T. Nadeau, J.) erroneously gave the jury a false exculpatory statement instruction; (2) the evidence on the second-degree murder charge was insufficient because it failed to eliminate the conclusion that Kassidy’s babysitter, Jeffrey Marshall, killed her; and (3) the court erroneously admitted various of Amanda’s statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See N.H. R. Ev. 803(2). We affirm.
Syndicate content