Cited by

“When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond [it] for further indications of legislative intent.” State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 86 (1997) (quotation omitted).

crime was committed.” Although the State concedes that the facts of the present case mirror those that existed in McKenney, it argues that McKenney and Komisarek have been implicitly overruled by subsequent cases such as State v. Johnson, 134 N.H. 570 (1991), Petition of Hamel, 137 N.H. 488 (1993), State v. Hamel, 138 N.H. 392 (1994), State v. Costello, 138 N.H. 587 (1994), and State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84 (1997).

State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 88 (1997) (appropriate focus in ex post facto analysis is whether law increases the punishment for or alters the elements of an offense, or changes the ultimate facts required to prove guilt).

Both Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution forbid ex post facto penal laws, Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 292 (1977); Petition of Hamel, 137 N.H. 488,494 (1993), and we have stated that both constitutions afford the same level of protection, State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 87 (1997).

Thus, it is clear that, at a minimum, the legislature intended to preclude the trial court from issuing new court orders requiring a parent to contribute to an adult child’s college or other educational expenses on or after February 2, 2004.

“When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute for further indications of legislative intent.” State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 86 (1997) (quotation omitted).

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent.

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent.

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent.

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute for further indication of legislative intent.

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute for further indication of legislative intent.

State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 86 (1997) (citation omitted).

When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent.

Laws 1994, 224:2,:4; see State v. Comeau, 142 N.H. 84, 87, 697 A.2d 497, 499 (1997).