NHCaseLaw.com

The defendant, Jason Fuller, is charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, theft by unauthorized taking and receiving stolen property. The charges all arise out of the defendant's alleged participation in the December 5, 2000 burglary of the residence of Chester Chmiola at 56 Grant Street, Manchester. Among the items taken in the burglary were a Baretta handgun and two (2) two- dollar bills. Presently before the court are the following pretrial motions filed by the defendant: (1) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4); (2) Motion to Suppress Statement (Doc. #5); and Motion to Suppress (Doc. #6). After reciting the pertinent facts, I address the motions in turn, concluding that the second motion must be granted while the first and third must be denied.

Robert W. Bruedle is charged with two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault (“AFSA”), one count of kidnapping and one count of conspiracy to commit witness tampering. Bruedle moves this court to compel the testimony of Daniel Henry Kight, a codefendant on the conspiracy count (following a Richards hearing, if necessary) or, in the alternative, to direct the State to immunize Kight for his trial testimony. The State did not file a written objection to Bruedle’s motion, but did file with the court a copy of a handwritten statement from Kight, as well as a copy of the transcript of three one-party intercepts with Kight. Also before the court is the State’s motion to consolidate Kight’s trial on one count of conspiracy to commit witness tampering and one count of witness tampering with Bruedle’s trial on the conspiracy charge.

The defendants are each charged with one count of theft by receiving stolen property, one count of conspiracy to commit burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit theft, and two counts of cruelty to animals. The allegations arose in connection with the drowning of a miniature dachshund dog, which allegedly occurred in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on May 18, 2004. The defendants now move to suppress all evidence the police obtained after their vehicles were stopped at the Dairy Queen in Kittery, Maine, alleging that the police were prohibited from relying on information contained in certain emails to effectuate the stops. Specifically, they claim the emails were obtained in violation of the wiretap statute and thus, any evidence derived from the emails must be suppressed. The State objects. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendants’ motions are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.