Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. CHRISICOS

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 17, 2009No. 2009-062Published

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

  1. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991
  2. State v. GordonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
  3. In re StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
  4. State v. AbramSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2008
  5. State v. LaporteSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2008

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API