State v. CHRISICOS
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1DissentBroderick, C.J.
Because I agree with the ruling of the trial court that the defendant, Michelle Chrisicos, is ineligible for a sentence of home confinement under the terms of RSA 262:23 (2004) (amended 2006), I respectfully dissent.
Our review of the trial court’s interpretation of a statute is de novo. Petition of State of N.H. (State v. Laporte), 157 N.H. 229, 231 (2008). “In interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id.
RSA 262:23, I, provides, in pertinent part:
Any sentence of one year…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
- State v. GordonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
- In re StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- State v. AbramSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2008
- State v. LaporteSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.