State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli
State of New Hampshire v. George J. Sartorelli, No. 2016-0425 (N.H. July 31, 2017).
The holding in the court’s own words
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.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Gero 152 N.H. 379
- Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trust 164 N.H. 62
- State v. Wood 150 N.H. 233
- New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. Butland 147 N.H. 676
- State v. Porter 144 N.H. 96
Opinion text
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