Menu
» Appeals
Victory on Appeal: Cruelty to Animals Conviction Reversed on Appeal
On March 30, 2023, in State v. Tufano, a case briefed and orally argued by Ted Lothstein, the NH Supreme Court reversed a conviction for cruelty to animals arising out of a very unusual fact pattern. The accused was seen by neighbors in a manufactured home park spraying water into a large plastic bin. Inside the bin, was a Havahart trap. Inside the trap, was a very vocal cat. A neighbor saw this happening, confronted the accused about it, but did nothing. But a few days later, another neighbor told him that the accused had a history of trapping cats, and that she had confronted him about it years prior. The neighbors went to the police and eventually, our client was charged with Cruelty to Animals and brought to trial. The case in the lower court. In the jury trial, Mr. Tufano was skillfully represented by former counsel Stephen Brown of Rochester, NH. But over Attorney Brown's objection, the prosecutor was allowed to introduce evidence that according to the neighbors, the accused had a history of trapping cats, which one witness described as "a history of being hostile towards cats." But the NH Supreme Court reversed, finding that this evidence was precluded under NH Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prevents the introduction of “propensity” or character evidence. This rule says that a prosecutor, or a party in a civil case, cannot introduce evidence that the defendant or opposing party committed a similar crime in the past, and then argue: He did it before, he must have done it again. Rule 404(b) is critical to ensure a fair trial. The prohibition on the use of character evidence to prove a person's propensity to commit crimes or propensity to do bad things is a critical legal principle of equal importance in civil and criminal cases. There are exceptions of course, like a serial killer who commits his murder in a unique manner, such that evidence of his past crimes helps identify him as the perpetrator. The exceptions apply when the evidence is admissible for a purpose other than propensity, such as, in our example, to prove identity. But otherwise, all of us can appreciate the purpose of this rule: We have all made mistakes at some point in our past, but we don't think that our mistakes should define us forever. But more importantly, propensity evidence leads to wrongful convictions, because even if the evidence is thin, the jury may convict out of fear they will let a person "get away with it again." Accused Hired Ted Lothstein and Lothstein Guerriero, PLLC for his Appeal. On appeal, Mr. Tufano hired Ted Lothstein and our firm to represent him before the NH Supreme Court. This is common in our practice: A person will be represented by another lawyer or firm in the trial court, and then we handle the appeal. A new lawyer on appeal can see things from a different perspective. And of course on top of that, we are highly experienced, having handled well over a hundred appeals in State and federal courts. Ted Lothstein prepared the brief, and presented oral argument, which you can listen to here. You can read Attorney Lothstein's brief here: 2022-03-14-Tufano-FINAL BRIEF Victory on Appeal. On March 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a published opinion, reversing (overturning) Mr. Tufano's conviction. The court held that the lower court's ruling allowing the prosecution to use propensity evidence to prove guilt was "clearly untenable", even taking into account the substantial discretion allowed to lower courts in making rulings on evidence. The ruling inflicted prejudice, meaning that the unfairly-admitted evidence influenced the jury's decision. And the court rejected the prosecution argument for "harmless error" - the argument that other evidence of guilt was overwhelming. It was not. Our firm has now had at least 78 published decisions in State and Federal appellate courts, and dozens of appellate victories, far more than most law firms in NH. Click here to learn more about our firm's appellate litigation practice. Click here to learn more about Ted Lothstein, who has co-chaired the NH Bar's Appellate Litigation seminar several times in recent years.
Read More
NH Supreme Court Recognizes Same-Sex Adultery as Grounds for Divorce
On April 1, 2021, we won a major victory in the NH Supreme Court that made the national news, receiving coverage in the ABA Journal, NH Public Radio, the Union Leader newspaper, and elsewhere. In In re Blaisdell, decided on April 1, the New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned prior precedent and held that a same-sex extramarital affair constitute adultery. 18 years ago, in 2003, a divided Court had narrowly held in the Blancheflower case that same-sex affairs do not give rise to a fault-based ground for divorce. In our case, In re Blaisdell, the Court recognized that the Legislature fundamentally transformed the marital laws when it adopted civil unions, and then gay marriage, just six years after Blancheflower. How could the Legislature have granted gay people the privileges, but not the responsibilities, of marriage? And thus, the Court unanimously overruled Blancheflower, and made its ruling retroactive. Read more here.
Read More
Supreme Court Throws Out Evidence Found in Warrantless 'Inventory Search'
In State v. Newcomb, 161 N.H. 666 (2011), an appeal won by Ted Lothstein, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed a lower court's order upholding the warrantless search of the locked cargo area of a rented U-Haul truck. The Kensington Police had arrested the U-Haul driver for criminal trespass. Like most police departments, Kensington has a policy allowing so-called 'inventory searches' which are post-arrest searches of vehicles in order to make a list of the driver's personal property in the vehicle. This is supposed to protect the driver from theft by the tow company or other third party that takes custody of the vehicle, and protect the police from false claims of theft. Kensington's policy allowed only searches of "unlocked areas and containers," with two exceptions: a locked glove compartment, and a locked trunk. The lower court had reasoned that the cargo area of a U-Haul truck is the equivalent of the trunk of a passenger vehicle. But the Supreme Court held that the lower court literally 'stretched' the analogy too far -- a trunk is defined as the "luggage compartment of an automobile," while a U-Haul cargo truck is "much larger than the average trunk and is intended to carry significantly more cargo," and unlike any car's trunk that I have ever seen, the U-Haul's cargo area is locked with a padlock. Accordingly, Mr. Newcomb faced only the relatively minor misdemeanor offense, criminal trespass, and was saved from the much more serious charges that arose from the unlawful search of his U-Haul truck. State v. Newcomb, 161 N.H. 666
Read More
New Trial, then Dismissal, for Therapist Wrongfully Accused
10/12/2018: In our most recent and perhaps our greatest victory, we won an appeal granting a new trial to a beloved and esteemed therapist wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a client. On October 12, 2018, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a critical victory we had already won in the Superior Court - a victory that freed a therapist from prison who had been wrongfully accused of sexual assault by a client, and cleared his name. The Court held that the Superior Court was right to vacate the jury verdicts and sentences, and grant a new trial, for the therapist because juror bias infected the proceedings, resulting in an unfair trial. On October 17, 2018, the Merrimack County Attorney's Office issued a press release, announcing the State would not bring the case to trial again. Instead, the State dismissed the charges. Read More about Dr. Afshar's Case
Read More
Multiple Felony Convictions Vacated
In State v. Charles Glenn, a published opinion decided December 10, 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated a number of serious felony convictions arising out of the retrial after a hung jury, because the prosecution did not bring the charges in a timely fashion.In the first jury trial, the State charged Glenn only with first degree murder (acquitted) and second degree murder, which resulted in a hung jury. Before the second jury trial, the State added five more felony charges: Criminal Threatening, Attempted Armed Robbery, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and two counts Falsification of Physical Evidence. The second jury convicted Glenn on all charges.The Court vacated all of the convictions, except for second degree murder. The Court held that the doctrine of mandatory joinder requires the prosecution to join all charges from the beginning of the prosecution.As you can see from the Court’s opinion, this ruling cut Glenn’s sentence by 10 years. Read the Court’s opinion in State v. Glenn (N.H. Dec. 10, 2014).
Read More
Possession of Drugs with Intent to Sell / Manufacturing Marijuana — Convictions Reversed
In State v. Stephen Socci, No. 2013-182, a decision released on July 8, 2014, the Court held that police officers and state troopers with the Rockingham County Drug Task Force, Kingston Police Department, and Rockingham County Sheriff Department violated Mr. Socci’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.The officers had marched onto his property without a search warrant, and searched around his garage, finding evidence that he was growing marijuana in the garage.The trial court held that the police did not violate Mr. Socci’s constitutional rights, and upheld the search, causing Mr. Socci to be convicted of two felonies.The Court reversed both felony convictions and remanded for further hearing.Right Vindicated: This case is a huge vindication for the fundamental right of people to be left alone, free of intrusion by the government, on their own property.It’s also Ted Lothstein’s 15th win in the NH Supreme Court!Read the Court’s Opinion in State v. Socci.Read the Appellant brief in State v. Socci. It’s the first brief filed by the Lothstein Guerriero, PLLC firm and our first brief to incorporate color photographs, bringing our firm’s appellate litigation into the 21st century.
Read More
Misdemeanor Sexual Assault — Jury Verdict Reversed
On November 3, 2009, the Court summarily reversed a jury verdict from the Hillsborough Superior Court North in Manchester for sexual assault.The Court held that the assistant county attorney’s prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument violated the accused’s right to a fair trial. Specifically, she argued that “only two people” (the accuser and accused) knew what happened, but the jury “only heard from one of them.”…These types of arguments are improper – an inappropriate comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.Read the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. Martin (2009).
Read More
Robbery and First Degree Assault — Convictions Reversed
On June 9, 2009, in an appeal briefed by Ted Lothstein, the Court reversed these serious felony convictions because the Manchester Police went into the accused’s home without getting a warrant from a judge.“The search of a home is subject to a particularly stringent warrant requirement because the occupant has a high expectation of privacy. To have it otherwise would be to obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.“Read Ted’s Brief on AppealRead the Court’s Decision. State v. Scott Robison (2009).
Read More
Vehicular Manslaughter and Vehicular Negligent Homicide — Convictions Reversed
On April 8, 2009, in a landmark decision, the NH Supreme Court reversed convictions arising out of a tragic automobile accident, because the evidence failed to establish that the victim was born alive.Right Vindicated: Although a very close case, here the prosecution failed to Prove Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.Read NH appeal attorney Ted Lothstein’s Brief on AppealRead the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. Joshua Lamy (2009).Read Coverage of this Victory in the Concord Monitor
Read More
Cutting Edge Litigation on The Right Against Double Jeopardy
In State v. Ernest Solomon, 156 N.H. _, 943 A.2d 819 (2008), for the first time in any American court, the NH Supreme Court held that the accused’s right to be free of double jeopardy was violated when, in the middle of his trial, his trial judge departed for military duty overseas and another judge declared a mistrial with intention to begin the trial anew.
Read More