State v. Hofland

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant violated Concord's overnight parking ordinance. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under RSA 599:1-c and rejected the defendant's arguments concerning notice, equal protection, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial recusal. The court affirmed the conviction and deemed unbriefed or insufficiently developed issues waived.

Holdings

1. A person sentenced by a district or municipal court for violating a municipal ordinance may appeal directly to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire under RSA 599:1-c.
2. Due process does not require a municipality to post every parking ordinance throughout the city or at the location where an alleged violation occurs when applicable law requires the ordinance to be kept on file and published but does not expressly require physical posting.
3. A defendant challenging enforcement of a municipal ordinance must establish conscious intentional discrimination or an impermissible classification treating similarly situated persons differently; Hofland failed to meet that burden.
4. The prosecutor's objections to the defendant's questions did not constitute misconduct, and any claim based on the prosecutor's closing argument was unpreserved because the defendant made no contemporaneous specific objection.
5. Recusal is required when a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned under an objective reasonable-person standard; Hofland identified no fact meeting that standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court of New Hampshire had subject-matter jurisdiction over an appeal from a district-court sentence for violating a municipal parking ordinance.
2. Whether due process required the City of Concord to post the parking ordinance where Hofland parked.
3. Whether allegedly nonuniform enforcement of the ordinance violated equal protection.
4. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct through objections during cross-examination or statements during closing argument.
5. Whether the trial judge was required to recuse under Supreme Court Rule 38.

Disposition

affirmed