MacPherson v. Weiner

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed a five-year extension of a final protective order issued under RSA 633:3-a. The court held that “good cause” for an extension is determined by considering the circumstances of the original stalking, violations of the order, and the plaintiff’s present reasonable fear concerning safety and well-being. The court also rejected the defendant’s claims that the statute’s good-cause standard was insufficiently supported by evidence or unconstitutionally vague.

Holdings

1. Good cause for extending a stalking protective order exists when, considering the original stalking, violations of the protective order, and the plaintiff's present and reasonable fear, current conditions indicate that the plaintiff's safety and well-being would be in jeopardy without the order.
2. A defendant's compliance with a protective order during the period preceding the requested extension does not, as a matter of law, bar an extension.
3. The evidence supported the trial court's finding of good cause, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by extending the protective order for five years.
4. RSA 633:3-a, III-c is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied because it provides adequate notice that the court will consider the original stalking, subsequent acts, and the plaintiff's safety and well-being, and that an extension may last up to five years.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff established good cause under RSA 633:3-a, III-c to support a five-year extension of the protective order.
2. Whether the defendant's compliance with the protective order during the preceding fifteen months barred an extension as a matter of law.
3. Whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion in granting the extension.
4. Whether RSA 633:3-a, III-c is void for vagueness under the Federal Constitution because it uses the term good cause without more specific standards.

Disposition

affirmed