State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli

DecidedJuly 31, 2017

Docket2016-0425

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli (State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli, (N.H. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0425, State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli, the court on July 31, 2017, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, George J. Sartorelli, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Tucker, J.) directing the State to permanently remove certain forfeited photographs from two cellular telephones prior to returning the phones to him and authorizing the State to remove all the data from the phones if it determines that the photographs cannot otherwise be permanently removed. See RSA 595- A:6 (2001). He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) not finding whether the photos may be removed permanently without removing all the data; (2) delegating that determination to the State; and (3) violating his due process rights by allowing the State to destroy non-forfeited data. See State v. Gero, 152 N.H. 379, 386-87 (2005) (establishing due process test to identify forfeited property).

The defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the issues on appeal have been raised before the trial court. Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. 62, 69 (2012); see State v. Wood, 150 N.H. 233, 236 (2003). The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been presented to the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 43(a); see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999).

In this case, because the defendant has not demonstrated that he preserved his arguments for our review, we decline to address them. See Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. at 69-70.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0425, State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli, the court on July 31, 2017, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, George J. Sartorelli, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Tucker, J.) directing the State to permanently remove certain forfeited photographs from two cellular telephones prior to returning the phones to him and authorizing the State to remove all the data from the phones if it determines that the photographs cannot otherwise be permanently removed. See RSA 595- A:6 (2001). He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) not finding whether the photos may be removed permanently without removing all the data; (2) delegating that determination to the State; and (3) violating his due process rights by allowing the State to destroy non-forfeited data. See State v. Gero, 152 N.H. 379, 386-87 (2005) (establishing due process test to identify forfeited property).

The defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the issues on appeal have been raised before the trial court. Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. 62, 69 (2012); see State v. Wood, 150 N.H. 233, 236 (2003). The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been presented to the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 43(a); see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999).

In this case, because the defendant has not demonstrated that he preserved his arguments for our review, we decline to address them. See Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. at 69-70.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-hampshire-v-george-j-sartorelli-nh-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack