“THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2012-0059, State of New Hampshire v. Kevin Smith, the court on April 9, 2014, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm. The defendant, Kevin Smith, appeals an order of the Concord District Division, finding him incompetent to stand trial and dismissing the charges against him without prejudice. We construe the defendants brief to contend that the trial court erred by: (1) appointing an attorney to represent him without his consent; (2) holding a hearing to determine his competency; (3) failing to give him adequate notice and discovery regarding that hearing; (4) making a “predetermination of time limits” for that hearing; (5) failing to hold the hearing on the date initially scheduled; (6) finding him incompetent without sufficient evidence; (7) hindering his presentation of evidence and arguments at that hearing; and (8) admitting a competency evaluation of him prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health in April 2011. At the outset, we note that the defendant has the right to challenge his competency determination, in spite of the fact that the trial court dismissed all charges against him pending before it. See State v. Veale, 158 N.H. 632, 639 (2009) (holding competency determinations sufficiently implicate reputational interests to warrant due process protection). However, on appeal, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate reversible error. See Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001). Issues raised on appeal that are not supported by developed legal arguments are waived. State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003); State v. Chick, 141 N.H. 503, 504 (1996) (passsing references to due process insufficient to warrant appellate review). We have reviewed the trial courts order, the defendants brief, and the record that the defendant has provided, and we conclude that the defendant has neigher demonstrated reversible error nor adequately developed his legal arguments. Affirmed. Dalianis, C.J. And Hicks, Conboy, Lynn and Bassett, JJ., concurred.” [NO SIGNATURE(??) - AGAIN]
Posted on: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:08:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015