Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Merrimack No. 2006-291 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. JOSEPH S. HAAS, JR. Submitted: April 5, 2007 Opinion Issued: June 26, 2007 Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the memorandum of law), for the State. Joseph S. Haas, Jr., by brief, pro se. James T. Brooks, assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief, for the Appellate Defender Program, as amicus curiae. DALIANIS, J. The defendant, Joseph S. Haas, Jr., appeals an order of the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) requiring him to reimburse the State for counsel fees as directed by the State Office of Cost Containment (OCC). See RSA 604-A:9, I (2001). We affirm. The defendant was charged with improper influence pursuant to RSA 640:3 (1996) (amended 2006), and counsel was appointed to represent him. The Superior Court (McGuire, J.) dismissed the charge, ruling that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. After dismissal, the defendant was ordered

to reimburse the State under RSA 604-A:9 (2001) for the costs of his legal representation. This appeal followed. The defendant argues that RSA 604-A:9 is unconstitutional, violating the substantive due process protections of Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it applies to acquitted defendants. The amicus curiae asserts that relieving a defendant who has been acquitted from having to reimburse the State for the costs of his defense is simple `elemental fairness.'" In support of his position, the defendant cites dicta from a non-precedential Opinion of the Justices in which we said, "Indeed, to require a defendant who has been acquitted to reimburse the State for expenses resulting from the State's prosecution would certainly be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional." Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 531, 537 (1981). During the intervening quarter century, however, jurisprudence has developed to the contrary. For the most part, recoupment statutes have been held to be constitutional

Download 2006-291, STATE OF NH v. JOSEPH S. HAAS, JR..pdf

New Hampshire Law