Cited by

So too was our State Constitution “intended to be [a] restraining document[],” one designed to ensure “that [the] exercise of power by the majority does not go unchecked.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 177 (1983).

Although he recognizes that, in such a case, “it is properly within the purview of the Judiciary to exercise its constitutional authority,” he asserts that “this is not that case,” because “[t]he precise issue presented by this case has been definitively decided by this Court in State v. LaFrance.” See State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 181-82 (1983).

“The power of the judiciary to control its own proceedings, the conduct of participants, the actions of officers of the court and the environment of the court is a power absolutely necessary for a court to function effectively and do its job of administering justice.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80 (1983).

merely restricted the application of the analysis contained in [PSAE] with respect to evidentiary rules, but did not find that the 1 The State also relies upon State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171 (1983), to argue that RSA 604:1-a violates the separation of powers doctrine because it interferes with the power of the courts to control their own proceedings.

“The power of the judiciary to control its own proceedings, the conduct of participants, the actions of officers of the court and the environment of the court is absolutely necessary for a court to function effectively and do its job of administering justice.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80 (1983) (noting that “the judiciary is in charge of the courtroom”); see In re Proposed Rules of Civil Procedure, 139 N.H. 512, 513 (1995).

State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80 (1983); cf. Emerson v. Town of Stratford, 139 N.H. 629, 631 (1995) (district courts have inherent power to impose sanctions).

[is] absolutely necessary for [us] to function effectively,” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80 (1983), and to carry out our mandate to “preserve the judicial system,” Opinion of the Justices, 140 N.H. at 300.

An essential power of the judiciary is the power to control its own proceedings.

It is our duty to interpret constitutional provisions and to determine whether the legislature has complied with them.

As the-dissenting justices in Salazar rightly observed, “Courts do not enact or create laws; [they] declare what the law is and what it requires.” Salazar, 79 P.3d at 1243-44 (Kourlis, J. dissenting); see State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 177 (1983).

This court has stated that “[t]he power of the judiciary to control its own proceedings, the conduct of participants, the actions of officers of the court and the environment of the court is a power absolutely necessary for a court to function effectively and do its job of administering justice.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80 (1983).

State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 176 (1983) (“[Ajrticle 37 was adopted to protect the executive and judicial branches of the State government from legislative encroachment.”).

It is beyond dispute that the judiciary has the power to control its courtrooms.

The oath we took to honor that constitution makes it our duty to apply the State Constitution when it does not conflict with the United States Constitution.

to protect against a seizure of control by one branch that would threaten the ability of our citizens to remain a free and sovereign people.” Petition of Mone, 143 N.H. 128, 134, 719 A.2d 626, 631 (1998) (citing State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 176, 471 A.2d 340, 342 (1983)).

Separation of the three co-equal branches of government is essential to protect against a seizure of control by one branch that would threaten the ability of our citizens to remain a free and sovereign people.

Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.H. at 290, 306 A.2d at 57 (“[T]he three departments must move in concert without improper encroachments by one branch upon the functions of another.”); cf. State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 176, 471 A.2d 340, 342 (1983) (“No branch of State government can lawfully perform any act which violates the State Constitution.”).

The trial court has inherent power to control every aspect of the proceeding before it.

The separation of powers doctrine set forth in part I, article 37 of the State Constitution compels limits to encroachments by one branch of government into the inherent and internal affairs of another branch.

“The power of the judiciary to control its own proceedings, the conduct of participants, the actions of officers of the court and the environment of the court is a power absolutely necessary for a court to function effectively and do its job of administering justice.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179-80, 471 A.2d 340,344-45 (1983) (referring to superior court).

Boody v. Watson, 64 N.H. 162, 177, 9 A. 794, 806 (1886) (“When the law commands a thing to be done, it puts in requisition the means of executing its command.”); see State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179, 471 A.2d 340, 344 (1983) (“[T]he judiciary is in charge of the courtroom.

State v. Martina, 135 N.H. 111, 115, 600 A.2d 132, 135 (1991); State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 179, 471 A.2d 340, 344 (1983); State v. Moquin, 105 N.H. 9, 11, 191 A.2d 541, 543 (1963); Opinion of the Justices, 86 N.H. 597, 601, 166 A. 640, 646 (1933).

Ct., 114 N.H. 790, 791, 330 A.2d 446, 447 (1974) (authority of district court to punish for contempt “is required to prevent acts or conduct which would obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice”); Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978) (authority of superior court); State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, *116 179-80, 471 A.2d 340, 344-45 (1983) (it is necessary that the judiciary be permitted to control its own proceedings).

This “requirement of the constitution is violated by an improper imposition upon one branch of constitutional duties belonging to another or an encroachment by one branch upon a constitutional function of another.” State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 176, 471 A.2d 340, 342 (1983).

Compare State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, 471 A.2d 340 (1983) (judiciary has authority to regulate conduct in the courtroom).