Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of New Hampshire v. Elaine Flanagan
Date: 12-06-2024
Case Number:
Judge: Tenney
Court: Circuit Court, Grafton County, New Hampshire
Plaintiff's Attorney: New Hampshire Attorney General's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Manchester Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Haverhill, New Hampsire criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with stalking.
In October 2019, the defendant sought the advice of the town's Police Chief to clarify the parameters of the protective order. The Police Chief testified that he told the defendant that if she were to leave her property and turn to the right - toward the victim's property - then she would likely be in violation of the order. The Police Chief advised the defendant to exit to the left - away from the victim's property - each time she left her home.
A few days after the discussion with the Police Chief, the defendant exited her home and walked to a neighbor's house on the same block. She turned to the right and began walking toward the neighbor's house, passing in front of the victim's house. The victim was in his yard at the time. He and the defendant made eye contact while they were approximately twenty feet apart. After the defendant passed in front of his house, the victim called the police. The police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the defendant. The complaint charged her with violating a protective order contrary to RSA 173-B:9.
* * *
In October 2019, the defendant sought the advice of the town's Police Chief to clarify the parameters of the protective order. The Police Chief testified that he told the defendant that if she were to leave her property and turn to the right - toward the victim's property - then she would likely be in violation of the order. The Police Chief advised the defendant to exit to the left - away from the victim's property - each time she left her home.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. The case addresses whether the defendant could be convicted under RSA 173-B for violating a protective order issued under RSA 633:3-a, examining whether the methods of enforcement and penalties for civil stalking protective orders are equivalent to those under RSA chapter 173-B.
CRIMINAL LAW. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction that the defendant knowingly violated a protective order prohibiting her proximity to the victim beyond a specified distance.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLAIN ERROR REVIEW. The court analyzed whether the defendant's failure to raise the issue of being charged with an incorrect statute at trial constituted plain error impacting the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.
Key Phrases Misdemeanor count. Protective order violation. Insufficient evidence. Plain error. Jury trial verdict.
In October 2019, the defendant sought the advice of the town's Police Chief to clarify the parameters of the protective order. The Police Chief testified that he told the defendant that if she were to leave her property and turn to the right - toward the victim's property - then she would likely be in violation of the order. The Police Chief advised the defendant to exit to the left - away from the victim's property - each time she left her home.
A few days after the discussion with the Police Chief, the defendant exited her home and walked to a neighbor's house on the same block. She turned to the right and began walking toward the neighbor's house, passing in front of the victim's house. The victim was in his yard at the time. He and the defendant made eye contact while they were approximately twenty feet apart. After the defendant passed in front of his house, the victim called the police. The police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the defendant. The complaint charged her with violating a protective order contrary to RSA 173-B:9.
* * *
In October 2019, the defendant sought the advice of the town's Police Chief to clarify the parameters of the protective order. The Police Chief testified that he told the defendant that if she were to leave her property and turn to the right - toward the victim's property - then she would likely be in violation of the order. The Police Chief advised the defendant to exit to the left - away from the victim's property - each time she left her home.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. The case addresses whether the defendant could be convicted under RSA 173-B for violating a protective order issued under RSA 633:3-a, examining whether the methods of enforcement and penalties for civil stalking protective orders are equivalent to those under RSA chapter 173-B.
CRIMINAL LAW. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction that the defendant knowingly violated a protective order prohibiting her proximity to the victim beyond a specified distance.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLAIN ERROR REVIEW. The court analyzed whether the defendant's failure to raise the issue of being charged with an incorrect statute at trial constituted plain error impacting the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.
Key Phrases Misdemeanor count. Protective order violation. Insufficient evidence. Plain error. Jury trial verdict.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of New Hampshire v. Elaine Flanagan?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard State of New Hampshire v. Elaine Flanagan?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Grafton County, New Hampshire, NH. The presiding judge was Tenney.
Who were the attorneys in State of New Hampshire v. Elaine Flanagan?
Plaintiff's attorney: New Hampshire Attorney General's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Manchester Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of New Hampshire v. Elaine Flanagan decided?
This case was decided on December 6, 2024.