Willful Concealment: New Hampshire Shoplifting Laws

Busted for Shoplifting in New Hampshire?

Taking someone else's property or money without their permission is theft; if the property is allegedly taken from a store it is commonly known as "shoplifting". Under New Hampshire's theft law, shoplifting is called “willful concealment”.  N.H. RSA 637:3-a Willful Concealment is the relevant law, which defines this crime as follows:

  “  I. A person is guilty of willful concealment if, without authority, he or she willfully conceals the goods or merchandise of any store while still upon the premises of such store. Goods or merchandise found concealed upon the person shall be prima facie evidence of willful concealment. Notwithstanding RSA 637:11, willful concealment shall be a misdemeanor.
    II. A person commits theft if, with the purpose to deprive a merchant of goods or merchandise, he or she knowingly:
       (a) Removes goods or merchandise from the premises of a merchant; or
       (b) Alters, transfers, or removes any price marking affixed to goods or merchandise; or
       (c) Causes the cash register or other sales recording device to reflect less than the merchant's stated or advertised price for the goods or merchandise; or
       (d) Transfers goods or merchandise from the container in which such goods or merchandise were intended to be sold to another container.”  RSA 637:3-a.

For shoplifting / willful concealment crimes, the level of offense charged, and therefore the potential penalties, is based on two main factors: the value of the items alleged to have been stolen; and the number of prior theft convictions on the person’s criminal record.

If you are not a citizen, any potential theft conviction triggers potentially catastrophic consequences including deportation.

If you or a loved one have been charged with shoplifting, theft, or willful concealment, it is imperative that you contact a New Hampshire criminal defense lawyer who has experience defending theft crimes right away, so they can begin building the best defense possible for your case.

Call Attorney Mark Stevens at 603-893-0074 today for a free consultation about your willful concealment or shoplifting charges.

NH Courts Closed for Veterans Day Reminder from Salem, NH DWI Lawyer Mark Stevens

Reminder:

All New Hampshire Courts and DMV's are closed today Friday November 11, 2016 in honor of Veterans Day.  

Thank you to all  who have served our Country

from 

NH Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Stevens 

5 Manor Parkway 

Salem, NH 03079 

603-893-0074  (24/7)

New Hampshire DWI Laws by New Hampshire Attorney Mark Stevens.

If you have been arrested in the state of New Hampshire or facing charges for OUI, DWI, DUI, or BWI-  Call the Law Offices of Mark Stevens for your free consultation and New Hampshire DWI case evaluation at 1-603-893-0074 today!

nhcrime.com

 Check out some of ByeByeDWI's other links:

Main Website

YouTube Channel

NH DWI Laws

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens
Tel: (603) 893-0074  (24/7) | Fax: (603) 893-5022
info@byebyedwi.com✉ |ByeByeDWI.com

Happy 4-20 Day from Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (24/7) 603.893.0074

Happy 4-20 Day! 

Please celebrate responsibly!! You should never lie to the cops, but you also don’t need to give them incriminating information about yourself either. Politely decline their questions then Lawyer Up & Shut Up and call me 24/7 @ 603.893.0074 to set up a free consultation or get advice roadside.

Here is a copy of the law regarding drug possession in New Hampshire:

 RSA 265-A:43:265-A:43  Possession of Drugs.
  Any person who drives on any way a vehicle while knowingly having in his or her possession or in any part of the vehicle a controlled drug or controlled drug analog in violation of the provisions of RSA 318:B shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and his or her license shall be revoked or his or her right to drive denied for a period of 60 days and at the discretion of the court for a period not to exceed 2 years.Here is the text of New Hampshire’s DWI law, which defines the elements of the crime of driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

If you have been accused by the police in New Hampshire of “Driving under the Influence of a Controlled Drug”, “Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and/or a Controlled Drug”,  possession of marijuana, or the transportation of marijuana please feel free to call my office  @ 603.893.0074 (24/7) or visit NHCrime.com for online booking to schedule a free consultation and initial case evaluation. I look forward to speaking with you.

Attorney Mark Stevens

5 Manor Pkwy. Salem, NH 03079

tel. 603.893.0261 or 603.893.0074

www.byebyedwi.com

New Hampshire Law: Limited Driving Privilege After Revocation or Suspension RSA 263:57-b

New Hampshire Cinderella License.  Many questions arise about New Hampshire's new "limited driving privilege" law.  This law took effect on January 1, 2016.  Unlike states that have "Cinderella licenses", (usually a 12 hour period of the day in which drivers in those states that issue Cinderella licenses can drive until license reinstatement), New Hampshire law is more restrictive.  A New Hampshire driver cannot be granted the "limited driving privileges" until her right to drive is already suspended for 45 consecutive days, then the driver must jump through substantial hoops, including the installation of an "alcohol ignition interlock ("IID") device in her car before the very limited driving privilege can be approved by the New Hampshire DMV. 

Below is the text of the law:


263:57-b Limited Driving Privilege After Revocation or Suspension. –
    I. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, if a person is convicted of a first offense under RSA 265-A:2, I, not including any conviction involving driving a commercial motor vehicle, he or she may petition the court for a restoration of his or her operator's license with limited driving privileges. To qualify for consideration, the person shall submit proof of financial responsibility in accordance with RSA 265-A:28 and an application that demonstrates the need for the license. Satisfactory evidence of at least one of the following must be presented, including satisfactory proof from the employer, program, medical treatment facility, state-approved educational institution, or other destination:
       (a) That the person must operate a motor vehicle as a requisite of the person's occupation or employment.
       (b) That the person must operate a motor vehicle to seek employment or to get to and from a place of employment.
       (c) That the person must operate a motor vehicle to get to or from an alcohol or drug treatment or rehabilitation program.
       (d) That the person or a member of the person's immediate family requires medical treatment on a regular basis and the person must operate a motor vehicle in order that the treatment may be obtained.
       (e) That the person must operate a motor vehicle to continue his or her education.
       (f) That the person must operate a motor vehicle to attend job training.
    II. A license restored under this section shall limit the person's driving privileges:
       (a) To the times, places, and days determined to be necessary for the person to seek or retain employment, to attend any alcohol or drug treatment or rehabilitation program, to continue his or her education, to attend job training, or to obtain required medical treatment for the person or a member of the person's immediate family.
       (b) To times, places, and days that are specifically stated.
       (c) To vehicles equipped with enhanced technology ignition interlock devices.
    III. A license restored under this section shall not be effective until the person's license has been suspended or revoked, either pursuant to criminal penalty or administrative suspension, for at least 45 days and shall expire on the date specified by the court.
    IV. A violation of this section or the terms of the license restored under this section shall be considered a violation of RSA 263:64 and the license shall be revoked.
    V. A person granted a limited privilege license under this section shall deliver a copy of the court order granting the limited privilege license to the law enforcement agency in the city or town in which he or she resides. When operating a motor vehicle, a person granted a limited privilege license under this section shall have a copy of the court order granting the limited privilege license upon his or her person or in some easily accessible place within the vehicle.

If you have been convicted of a first offense DWI in New Hampshire and are contemplating petitioning for a limited driving privilege, please free to call me right away at 1-603-893-0074 if you would like to discuss this.  Careful consideration should be made on a case by case basis as to whether the application and obtainment of one of these "privileges" is worth it for you.



Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
603-893-0074
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2016

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.

New Hampshire Laws: Major Penalties Added for Passing A School Bus in 2016

New Hampshire Law on Passing a School Bus: Penalties Cranked Up in 2016. Some major changes were made to the New Hampshire law on passing a school bus that severely increased the punishment for convictions, titled "Buses" (RSA 265:54),  which went into into effect on January 1, 2016 in New Hampshire.  Here is the law:

Buses

Section 265:54

    265:54 Overtaking and Passing School Bus. –
    I. The driver of a vehicle upon a way upon meeting or overtaking from either direction any school bus, plainly marked with school bus signs or such other distinguishing identification as the director may require, which has stopped on the highway for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children shall stop his or her vehicle before reaching such school bus at least 25 feet away from such school bus. The driver shall not proceed until such school bus resumes motion, or until flashing red lights cease to operate.
    I-a. Testimony under oath from the school bus driver or other witness that a vehicle failed to stop and remain stopped as required by paragraph I shall be sufficient evidence to prove that the owner of the vehicle was driving and has violated the provisions of paragraph I, unless such evidence is rebutted or contradicted.
    I-b. Except as provided in paragraph IV, a person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined $150 plus penalty assessment for a first offense, and shall be fined not less than $250 nor more than $1,000 for a subsequent offense. In addition, the director may suspend the person's license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 30 days for a second or subsequent offense.
    II. Whenever road conditions and space permit and whenever the number of vehicles following a moving school bus is 5 or more, the driver of the school bus shall pull over and let the following vehicles pass. A driver passing the school bus must do so without driving any part of his vehicle to the left of or across any unbroken painted line marked on the highway.
    III. The driver of a vehicle upon a divided highway with separate roadways need not stop when meeting or passing a school bus which is traveling in the opposite direction on the other half of the divided highway, or when upon a controlled access highway if a school bus is stopped in a loading zone which is part of or adjacent to such highway and pedestrians are not permitted to cross the roadway.
    IV. Except as provided in paragraph III, no driver of a vehicle who is required to stop his or her vehicle in accordance with paragraph I shall overtake and pass a school bus on the right. A person who violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined $500 plus penalty assessment. In addition, the director shall suspend the person's license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of up to 30 days for a first offense. For a second or subsequent offense, the person must appear before the court and shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,200 plus penalty assessment. The director shall suspend the person's license to drive or nonresident driving privilege for a period of 30 days for a second offense, and for a period of not less than 30 days nor more than 120 days for a third or subsequent offense.


Some thoughts on this law:   Be careful while driving. Do not pass a school bus at times under conditions prohibited by this law.  The safest thing to do is to pay attention to the road.  However, if you get stopped and the police question you about whether you illegally passed a school bus, it is as unwise to admit to that as it is to admit to any other other crime or motor vehicle violation. Call me at 1-603-893-0074 to discuss your situation if you would like to do so.

Conflicting Provisions: Paragraphs I-b and IV are in conflict with each other regarding penalties for a conviction.

Potentially Unconstitutional Definition of "Sufficient Proof" of Guilt:  Paragraph I (a) of this law may be constitutionally challenged as it contains a presumption of guilt if "testimony under oath from the school bus driver or other witness that a vehicle failed to stop and remain stopped as required by paragraph I shall be sufficient evidence to prove that the owner of the vehicle was driving and has violated the provisions of paragraph I".  1.  The burden of proof in any criminal or motor vehicle trial is squarely upon the state, not the accused.  2. "Sufficient evidence" does not equal "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  3. The fact that a "vehicle" allegedly violated this law does not logically prove that the "owner" was driving it at the time.  4.  The law does not give any judicial discretion to either credit the witnesses' testimony, discredit it, or credit in in part.  All the witness has to do is testify under oath, no matter how credibly or incredibly, to sustain a conviction.

This law creates other encroachments upon the Constitutional rights of the accused, another of which is the law's legal standard that the accused will be convicted if the bus driver or any other witness claims the driver passed the bus, "unless such evidence is rebutted or contradicted." The accused in the United States does not bear any burden of proving her innocence.  This law seems to carve out an exception to that guarantee.



If you have been charged with passing a school bus in New Hampshire you are now facing serious consequences for a first offense, even if your record is spotless and even if you did not even illegally pass the bus.  Feel free to call me right away at 1-603-893-0074 if you have been charged or are under investigation for passing a school bus.


Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
603-893-0074
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2016

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.

WHY MARK STEVENS # SHOULD BE IN YOUR CONTACTS

WHY MARK STEVENS # SHOULD BE IN YOUR CONTACTS...

This coming holiday weekend seems to result in a lot of shoplifting arrests, willful concealment, and other theft charges all across New Hampshire. However the number of shoplifting arrests in Rockingham County, Strafford County, and Hillsborough County are significantly higher than others on Black Friday.

Each year Black Friday gets bigger than the year before with stores trying to outdo one another, offering the biggest and the best, cheaper than their competitors.  No matter how popular Black Friday increasingly becomes,  or how much Cyber Monday tries to steal its spotlight offering those less inclined to pepper spray their way to the biggest TV an online version the following Monday.  Does it really matter who stampedes their way to the front of the line for the biggest, best, cheapest?  Not if you've just been arrested for shoplifting or accused of "willful concealment" in New Hampshire.  

The shoplifting laws in New Hampshire are tough. If you are accused of any type of theft or shoplifting offense it is extremely important you do not say anything, or let them bully you into saying anything. If you are brought into a loss prevention or store security office it is important you do not feel pressured to sign anything. They will most likely try to get you to make any type of admission they can. DO NOT let store security take your picture, they are not the police and cannot make you do anything. You do not even need to give store security, mall security, or loss protection your identification!!!

If you are suspected of shoplifting, either store/mall security or the loss preventions department will call the police. When the cops arrive make sure you are respectful and do not resist arrest OR admit to anything either! Be polite, do not make any statements, and make sure you have some bail money with you.


Check out Mark Stevens YouTube Video on Shoplifting:

Happy Thanksgiving! Happy Black Friday.  If you do get busted this weekend though call me right away at 1-603-893-0074.  I look forward to speaking with you!

Busted for Shoplifting in New Hampshire? Call Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074Remember: Lawyer Up and Shut Up. 

Then call me right away after you get released: 1-603-893-0074 

ByeByeDWI.com & NHCrime.com 

Cheers to Pumpkin Festival 2015 from NH Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens 603.893.0074 (24/7)

Cheers to a Safe Pumpkin Festival!

Last year in Keene, NH at the Annual Pumpkin Festival also known as "Let it Shine", over 120 individuals from seven different states were arrested and resulted in SWAT, riot crews, pepper ball slinging, tear gas, and numerous accounts of disorderly conduct.  Over 170 Keene State students were given some type of disciplinary action due to the chaos and what seemed to be never ending rioting. 

The Keene Riot of 2014, which recruited nationwide attention during Pumpkin Festival was completely out of control and as a result Keene City Council rejected the annual return of one of Cheshire Counties most anticipated events.

Luckily- Belknap County decided to step it up and Laconia, NH will be the new host of the Annual Pumpkin Fest tradition Saturday October 24,  2015.  

Pumpkin Festival started in 1991 in Keene, New Hampshire and has taken place there every year since, until now. The annual event hosts contests and makes an attempt to break the Guinness Book of World Records every year for the most amount of lit jack o' lanterns at one time.

Have a Pepper Ball & Tear-Gas-Free Pumpkin Festival This Year!

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com

If you have been arrested in the state of New Hampshire or facing charges for OUI, DWI, DUI, or BWI- Call the Law Offices of Mark Stevens for your free consultation and New Hampshire DWI case evaluation at 1-603-893-0074 today!

Roadblocks this Weekend in Concord NH Area!!! NH Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Stevens (24/7) 603-893-0074

This weekend (July 24-25) and next weekend (July 31-8/1) everyone in Nashua, NH or around the Capital City area (Chichester, NH) should be aware that there are  DWI roadblocks in undisclosed locations somewhere around the Nashua and Chichester NH vicinities, so be careful this weekend!! 

July 24 & July 25 Concord, NH Sobriety Checkpoint

July 31 & August 1 Nashua, NH Sobriety Checkpoint 

Remember to arm yourself with the knowledge of your rights during an objectionable encounter with police and to also be prepared for police blockades in your travels this weekend!

Wishing Everyone a Safe and Police Free Weekend!! 

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022emal attorney stevens| www.byebyedwi.com

 

New Hampshire DWI Laws by New Hampshire Attorney Mark Stevens.

If you have been arrested in the state of New Hampshire or facing charges for OUI, DWI, DUI, or BWI- Call the Law Offices of Mark Stevens for your free consultation and New Hampshire DWI case evaluation at 1-603-893-0074 today!

www. ByeByeDWI.com

Can a Parent Spank a Child in Massachusetts? Commonwealth v. Dorvil Recognizes Parental Privilege Defense

Assault and battery.  On June 25, 2015, in Commonwealth v. Dorvil, SJC Number 11738, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed an assault and battery conviction from the Brockton District Court.  The charge and conviction were based on a parent spanking a three year old child in public that was observed by a police officer.  In Dorvil, the SJC "expressly recognized a parental privilege defense" for the first time, which justified the use of reasonable force by a parent to discipline a child.  The Court noted that it weighed two important interests in reaching its opinion: the welfare of children requiring protection from abuse on one hand, versus the avoidance of unnecessary State interference in parental autonomy as it concerns child rearing on the other hand.

In reversing Dorvil's assault and battery conviction, the Massachusetts SJC articulated the framework with which Massachusetts Courts will analyze these cases.  The Court held that a parent or guardian may not be subjected to criminal liability for the use of force against a minor child under the care and supervision of the parent or guardian, "provided that (1) the use of force against the minor child is reasonable; (2) the force is is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor's misconduct; and (3) the force used neither causes, nor creates the substantial risk of causing, physical harm (beyond fleeting pain or minor transient marks), gross degradation, or severe mental distress."

Each of these three factors are to be determined based on the facts of the case by the trier of fact (jury or jury-waived judge).


Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
603-893-0074
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2015 Attorney Mark Stevens, 5 Manor Parkway, Salem NH 03079

This blog post and blog are legal advertising.

New Hampshire Law Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving by Mark Stevens 603-893-0074

New Hampshire Hands Free Cell Phone Law. The new ban on making cell phone calls and texts, titled "Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition (RSA 265:79-c),  went into effect today, July 1, 2015 in New Hampshire.  Here is the law:


[RSA 265:79-c effective July 1, 2015.]     265:79-c Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition. –
    I. (a) No person, while driving a moving motor vehicle upon a way or temporarily halted in traffic for a traffic control device or other momentary delay, shall use any hand-held mobile electronic device capable of providing voice or data communication, including but not limited to: reading, composing, viewing, or posting any electronic message; or initiating, receiving, or conducting a conversation; or initiating a command or request to access the Internet; or inputting information into a global positioning system or navigation device; or manually typing data into any other portable electronic device. An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section.
       (b) "Driving,'' for the purposes of this section, shall not include when a person is behind the controls of a vehicle that has pulled to the side of or off the road at a location where it is legal to do so and where the vehicle remains stationary.
    II. It shall not be an offense under this section for any person driving a motor vehicle upon a way:
       (a) To make use of a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or directly to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or emergency medical provider.
       (b) To use one hand to transmit or receive messages on any non-cellular 2-way radio.
       (c) To use a Bluetooth enabled or other hands-free electronic device, or a similar device that is physically or electronically integrated into a motor vehicle, for such a purpose to send or receive information provided the driver does not have to divert his or her attention from the road ahead. As used in this section, "hands-free electronic device'' means a mobile electronic device that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile electronic device, by which a user engages in conversation without the use of either hand; provided, however, this definition shall not preclude the use of either hand merely to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.
    III. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined $100 plus penalty assessment for a first offense, $250 plus penalty assessment for a second offense, and $500 plus penalty assessment for any subsequent offense within a 24-month period.
    IV. No person less than 18 years of age shall use a cellular or mobile telephone or other mobile electronic device, whether hands-free or not, while driving a motor vehicle in motion or temporarily stopped in traffic upon any way, except to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or any public safety agency. A person violating this paragraph shall be subject to the fines in paragraph III and license suspension or revocation under RSA 263:14, III.

Thoughts on this law:   Be careful while driving.  It is not a good idea to text and drive or be distracted in any other way while driving.  The safest thing to do is to pay attention to the road.  However, if you get stopped and the police question you about whether you were talking or texting, it is as unwise to admit to that as it is to admit to any other other crime or violation.

Furthermore, the last sentence of paragraph I (a) of this new law may be constitutionally challenged as it contains a presumption of guilt if the police see a phone in the "immediate proximity" of a driver's ear.  Firstly, "immediate proximity" is vague, and most importantly, we enjoy a presumption of innocence under our state and federal Constitutions, not a presumption of guilt.

Be careful out there, as the police now have one more tool to stop you with.


Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
603-893-0074
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2015, 2016

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.

Call Off the Dogs: When You Can't Be Held Up By the Cops for a "Dog Sniff". by Attorney Mark Stevens

Illegal Search and Seizure. Being stopped for a routine traffic citation is common occurrence, and it happens to ordinary citizens frequently.  The police sometimes try to morph the routine traffic stop into a generalized search as part of their "War on Drugs", often by threatening to "bring out a drug dog" if the driver does not consent to a search of her car for drugs or other contraband.

 In Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court tethered police officers to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures and searches that occur when the police try to turn an ordinary traffic stop into a far more intrusive encounter. A traffic stop can become unconstitutional at the point that the police extend it beyond the time necessary to accomplish the initial reason for the stop.  In Rodriguez' case, for example, he was stopped for "swerving".  When the officer asked him why he swerved he said he avoided a pothole.  The officer issued Rodriguez a written warning for the swerve, then delayed Rodriguez at the roadside for seven or eight minutes until another officer with a drug sniffing dog arrived. The drug dog indicated that drugs were present and the police found a controlled drug: methamphetamine in Rodriguez' car.  The government argued that a 7 or 8 minute intrusion into a person's freedom was "de minimis".  it probably didn't feel that way to Mr. Rodriguez.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the government's argument, and held that an extension of a seizure after the mission of the initial stop had been accomplished (in this case a written warning), without reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity violated the Fourth Amendment and the Court reversed and remanded Rodriguez' case.  This holding may provide even greater protection than the current law in New Hampshire.  In one of the leading cases on how cases involving extensions of routine traffic stops are permissible under the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire Supreme Court noted that:

"On the other hand, requiring every police inquiry either to be related to the initial purpose of the Terry stop or to be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity is unduly restrictive."
State v. MacKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19 (2004).  In Rodriguez, in contrast, the United States Supreme Court held that "Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures."

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
603-893-0074
Admitted in New Hampshire and Massachusetts

(c) 2015

This blog post and blog constitute legal advertising.

Heads Up!!! Sobriety Checkpoints This Weekend in Manchester, New Hampshire April 24th and April 25th

Heads Up! This weekend Manchester Police will be conducting DWI Roadblocks and Sobriety Checkpoints in undisclosed areas around Manchester, New Hampshire on April 24th and April 25th. 

Here are a few tips if you find yourself caught in one of these traps over the weekend:1. Put Mark Stevens # in your phone now 603-785-6458 (24/7 & roadside). Might be a good idea if you need it later...
2. DON'T RUN, make any last minute U-turns, or try to dodge these. It will only end up making things worse.
3. You do not have to take the Field Sobriety Tests, You have the right to refuse them.

Know your rights, as well as knowing that the Constitution still protects you from before and after you are stopped by the police. Call for free initial consultation and case evaluation for your DWI, DUI, OUI, aggravated DWI or boating while intoxicated cases. 

Check out Attorney Stevens YouTube Channel for more videos like this one-

Have you been arrested for a DWI charge in New Hampshire? Were you trapped and captured in a police DWI roadblock?  The chances are greater than ever that your arrest occurred after an arrest in a DWI roadblock. The police call these "sobriety checkpoints" because that sounds somewhat less offensive to our Constitution's and our way of life; but they are what they are, and what they are, are roadblocks.

New Hampshire DWI laws and constitutional issues arising from DWI road blocks by New Hampshire DWI defense lawyer Mark Stevens. DWI roadblocks are a growing problem in New Hampshire. If you have been arrested for a DWI charge in New Hampshire call Attorney Mark Stevens to schedule a free consultation and initial case evaluation  (24/7)  603-893-0074 or 603-893-0261.  We look forward to speaking with you.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens
Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022
info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com

Did You Get Stopped at a Roadblock in Salem, NH? Call Mark Stevens Drug-DUI Defense Lawyer (24/7) 603-893-0074

Remember to arm yourself with the knowledge of your rights during an objectionable encounter with police and to also be prepared for police blockades in your travels....

Wishing Everyone (AS ALWAYS!) a Safe and Police Free Weekend!! 

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens

Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022
       

New Hampshire DWI Laws by New Hampshire Attorney Mark Stevens.

If you have been arrested in the state of New Hampshire or facing charges for OUI, DWI, DUI, or BWI- Call the Law Offices of Mark Stevens for your free consultation and New Hampshire DWI case evaluation at 1-603-893-0074 today!

www. ByeByeDWI.com

#LawyerUp with New Hampshire Criminal Defense and DUI Attorney Mark Stevens. Call 24/7 to set up your free consultation 603-893-0074. We look forward to speaking with you.

The Deliberations in the Aaron Hernandez Case by Attorney Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074

Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial. The jury in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial has been deliberating for days now.  So what are they trying to decide?  The jury could find Hernandez not guilty of the murder charge and the weapon and ammunition charges, or they could find him guilty of the weapons charges but not the murder, or vice versa.

If they find Hernandez guilty of murder based on the Commonwealth's circumstantial evidence presented, they could find him guilty of first degree murder or second degree murder.  In Massachusetts, if the jury found that Hernandez was guilty of killing Odin Lloyd, they would then have to unanimously decide between a first degree murder or second degree murder conviction.  To prove first degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez killed Lloyd with deliberate premeditation, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or both.

The Massachusetts statutory definition of murder is found at Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, "Crimes Against the Person", Section 1, "Murder Defined" :

     "Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury."

A first degree murder conviction for Hernandez would result in a life prison sentence without the possibility of parole.  The jury alternatively could find Hernandez guilty of murder in the second degree.  If that was their verdict, Hernandez would receive a sentence of life in prison but would be eligible for parole after serving 15 years.  In Massachusetts, life sentence parole hearings are handled by the Life Sentence Unit of the Massachusetts Parole Board who prepare and schedule the Initial Hearing to determine whether the Board would grant parole.  Inmates facing an Initial Hearing before the full parole board while serving a life maximum sentence are entitled to counsel, and to present evidence favorable to the granting of parole.

Though the jury's job is not easy in any circumstantial murder case, it is perhaps more difficult in Massachusetts, where the jury could also find Hernandez guilty of murder under Massachusetts' somewhat confusing "joint venture" law.  In Hernandez' case, no murder weapon was recovered and there is no direct evidence of which of three men present at Lloyd's shooting actually killed him.  Mere presence at the scene by Hernandez, which his defense admitted, is not sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.  To prove Hernandez guilty by "joint venture", the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez knowingly participated in the crime, and that he did so with the intent required to commit that crime.  Mere presence or even failure to stop the crime is insufficient for a guilty verdict.

Weighing an entirely circumstantial case, even where there are some bad facts for Hernandez, won't be easy for the jury, particularly when they have to consider what. if any, Hernandez' role was in the killing, besides being merely present when it happened.  Likewise troubling may be the lack of any apparent motive for the millionaire tight end to throw away a promising NFL career.  

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
Admitted in Massachusetts and New Hampshire
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
1-603-893-0074
info@nhcrime.com

Happy St. Patrick's Day from Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Stevens (24/7) 603.893.0074

Wishing everyone a Safe and Police-Free St. Patrick's Day! 

If you or someone you know had an unwanted police encounter during the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade and festivities in Boston, you may be wondering whether or not you need a lawyer to help you fight these charges.  

Call Attorney Mark Stevens ([24/7] or roadside) at 603-893-0074 or 603-893-0261 to contact a qualified attorney who fights cases like these every day. Attorney Mark Stevens is located in Salem, New Hampshire but is admitted to practice in all New Hampshire and Massachusetts courts. Attorney Stevens will know what to do call now to set up your free consultation and initial case evaluation. 

For More Information on DWI Laws or Information on Attorney Stevens visit NHDWILaws.com or ByeByeDWI.comPrefer to Book a Free Consultation Online? Visit DWI Lawyer Mark Stevens at NHCrime.com and scroll to the bottom to fill out the consultation request form. We look forward to speaking with you.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark Stevens 

          Tel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022 

 info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com  

                             

Commonwealth v. Fujita: Massachusetts SJC Rules Jury Lists to Be Made Public, January 27, 2015

Overlooked to an extent because of the concurrent Blizzard of 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") issued an historic opinion today in the case of Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Fujita. The Fujita case was a murder trial that resulted in a guilty verdict against Mr. Fujita for killing his ex-girlfriend.  This appeal, however, arose from the trial court's ruling on a motion from The Boston Globe to reveal the jury list, which contained the jurors' names and addresses from the trial, to determine whether the jurors would be willing to be interviewed by The Globe after they had rendered their verdict.

In Fujita, the SJC ruled that "the public's long-term interest in maintaining an open judicial process, as embodied in the United States Constitution and Massachusetts common law, requires that a list identifying the names of jurors who have been empanelled and rendered a verdict in a criminal case be retained in the court file of the case and be made available to the public in the same manner as other court records."    The Court noted that Massachusetts common law, tradition and trial practice, dating back to the Boston Massacre trials in 1770, has been that juror information be known to the public.  The Court noted that the names of the jurors who acquitted the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre were known to the public.  Another case cited but the Court was the 1806 trial of Thomas Selfridge, a Boston attorney accused of murder, on whose jury Paul Revere sat.   Paul Revere and the other jurors names were public information.

The Fujita ruling did not change the confidentiality of the juror questionnaires, which are confidential and are to be destroyed after the trial by the trial court pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 234A, sec. 23.  Today's ruling did, however, impose an affirmative duty on the trial courts to include a list of the names of the jurors empanelled in a criminal case as part of the court file to be made available to the public, "no later than at the conclusion of the trial".

Attorney Mark Stevens
Admitted in Massachusetts & New Hampshire
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
1-603-893-0074

Attorney Mark Stevens is a Salem, New Hampshire criminal defense lawyer.

Did you receive Bad Mail from the State? Don't Let Bad Mail Get You Down, Call NH Defense Attorney Mark Stevens for a Free Consultation 603-893-0074

Did you receive Bad Mail from the State Lab? 

Don't let bad mail get you down... 

Call an experienced attorney who can help you handle these frustrating legal matters. New Hampshire Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens is admitted to practice in all NH and MA courts. 

The consultation is free, call right now to schedule your free initial case consultation and find out what Attorney Mark Stevens can do to fight your case!

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022 Email Mark | www.byebyedwi.com

Click links to be directed to ByeByeDWI: 

Main Website

Blog

YouTube Channel

NH DWI Laws

The New Hampshire Herald

Motions to Change Venue in Criminal Trials by Attorney Mark Stevens 1-603-893-0074

The motion to change venue in the trial of accused Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gained recent significant attention. His second motion to change venue was denied by the trial court, Tsarnaev then appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay (delay) in jury selection and trial in order to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to change venue.  In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals denied his effort to stay the trial to argue for a change of venue.

The trial court relied heavily on the case of Skilling v. United States, a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to change venue, and in which the Supreme Court gave factors which should be considered on motions to change venue in criminal trials: 1). the size and diversity of the pool of potential jurors from which the jury pool would be drawn; 2). the nature and type of news media coverage of the case; and 3). the amount of time that had passed between the alleged crime or crimes and the trial date. Skilling lost his motion to change venue and lost that issue on appeal.

Skilling's case, however, was not a capital murder case; it was a white collar fraud case which was part of the Enron scandal.  A closer case to Tsarnaev's is the Timothy McVeigh case in the Oklahoma bombing, in which a motion to change venue was granted: Timothy McVeigh v. United States.  The trial court in McVeigh found that the "emotional burden of the explosion and its consequences" on those who lived in the area but were personally unaffected created "so great a prejudice against [the] defendants in the State of Oklahoma that they cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial", and granted McVeigh's motion to change venue for his capital murder trial.  His case was moved to Colorado for trial.

Tsarnaev's case presented a much stronger argument for a change of venue than McVeigh's, as the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals opined in the order denying Tsarnaev's motion to stay jury selection until the denial of his motion could be appealed: Order of First Circuit Court of Appeals, In Re: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev v. United States, January 3, 2015. As the dissenting judge wrote, "the entire city of Boston and its surrounding areas were victimized -- as evidenced by the city's virtual lockdown and the images of SWAT team members roaming the streets and knocking door-to-door in Watertown -- is compelling ".  Nonetheless, Tsarnaev's motion to change venue was denied and his trial has begun.

Arguably, if the denial of Tsarnaev's motion to change venue is ultimately upheld on appeal, it may make it impossible or close to impossible for successful motions to change venue in the future.  Curiously though, trying Tsarnaev in Massachusetts, which is not a death penalty state, may improve his chances of having jurors, who will decide whether he lives or dies, who are not willing to vote to kill him, regardless of how heinous the crimes.

Attorney Mark Stevens
Law Offices of Mark Stevens
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
1-603-893-0074
NHCrime.com
Admitted in Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Happy New Years Eve from DWI Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (27/7) 603.893.0074

Happy New Years Eve from DWI Criminal Defense Lawyer Mark Stevens (27/7)  603.893.0074

Happy New Years Eve! Please drive safely. Please don’t drive drunk tonight; call a cab. If you ignore this advice and get arrested for DWI, call me tonight or today at 1-603-893-0074. Try to avoid unwanted police contact tonight by checking your lights, including plate lights before heading out tonight, and remembering to carry your driver’s license with you while driving. Avoid driving if you have any active arrest warrants out for you. Any equipment violation will get you stopped tonight because it’s New Year’s Eve. Take a cab if you need to or arrange for a designated driver before you start drinking. If you do run into any weekend arrests or issues with the police feel free to call at any time. Don’t wait until Monday! Call me at 1-603-893-0074 RIGHT NOW to plan your next steps.

If you are facing a DUI, DWI , aggravated DWI, “minor in possession”, “unlawful intoxication by a minor” “transportation of alcohol”, “conduct after an accident” (that means “leaving the scene of an accident”), “reckless driving”, ”simple assault” or other motor vehicle violation or criminal charges in a New Hampshire District Court or Superior Court, call Attorney Mark Stevens today at 1-603-893-0074 for a free initial consultation. Don’t wait! New Hampshire DWI laws, New Hampshire criminal laws, penalties and case examples. Also remember that under New Hampshire’s aggravated DWI law that if you cooperate and blow into the breath test machine when the officer requests it, you can end up in jail.

Mark Stevens, Criminal Defense Attorney, Law Office of Mark StevensTel: (603) 893-0074 | Fax: (603) 893-5022info@byebyedwi.com | www.byebyedwi.com