New Hampshire
NH Supreme Court Keeps One Cop on the Laurie List While Letting Another Off
The most recent Laurie List of dishonest cops can be seen here: https://indepthnh.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/November-5-2024-EES-List.pdf
By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
One police officer accused of lying is getting removed from the state’s Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, while another accused of lying will remain on the list.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued case orders on Tuesday on two separate Laurie List appeals, and while the cases are similar, the different results highlight the fact the court is still defining how Laurie List functions since it became a public document in 2021.
The Laurie List, or EES, is a list maintained by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office of police officers with known credibility issues that need to be disclosed to defense attorneys. After the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, publisher of InDepthNH.org, sued the state to make the list public, New Hampshire’s courts have been adapting to the new legal landscape.
Neither officer is named in the lawsuits decided Tuesday, but both share basic facts. Both officers were put on the EES after being accused of lying in incidents that took place more than a decade ago, and both officers had lower court judges rule the triggering incidents did not need to be disclosed during trials when considered as part of possible evidence.
But the key facts the Supreme Court seemed to base the decisions on is the weight of the evidence against the officers.
The first John Doe was accused of lying during an internal investigation in 2013, but the Supreme Court justices found his reported lie came down to a possible misunderstanding of an unclear question.
In 2013, the officer was told by a relative of his police chief that a complaint had been submitted over some incident. The same day, the officer was given a letter that an internal investigation was underway into the complaint, and he later spoke with the investigator. During that interview, the officer was asked how he learned about the investigation.
“[T]he plaintiff ‘verbally stumbled with a response’ and gestured to the department’s mail slots. He then said ‘from your . . . letter advising of the complaint,’” court records state.
The officer was never disciplined over the complaint, but instead the investigator determined that he lied about first hearing about the investigation from the letter and not from the chief’s relative. However, the officer claimed he learned about the complaint before he got the letter informing him about the investigation, and therefore he did not lie.
It was over this alleged lie that the officer was placed on the EES, and not over any complaint or other misconduct. The Supreme Court ruled that the potential confusion over the interviewer’s question creates enough doubt about whether or not the officer lied at all.
“The plaintiff claims that, although he told the investigating officer that he had spoken with another officer regarding the complaint, ‘he was honest in answering that he only became aware of the investigation when he was formally apprised of it in writing,’” the Supreme Court ruled. “We agree with the plaintiff that it is unclear whether the investigating officer asked him when he first learned of the complaint or when he first learned of the investigation.”
The case against a second John Doe, a New Hampshire State Trooper, is less ambiguous, according to the court. More than 14 years ago, the Trooper failed to appear at an Administrative License Suspension hearing. When he requested a rescheduled hearing, the trooper claimed he never got the first notification that was sent to his email account, and actually testified he never got the email during the rescheduled hearing.
Unfortunately for the trooper, a follow-up internal investigation found that not only did he get the original email notification, he reportedly deleted that email after he missed the first hearing. The trooper was disciplined and he appealed to the Personnel Appeals Board, which also found he lied during its hearing.
Even though he went on to have an exemplary career and the incident was more than a decade old, the lies about the email are enough to keep him on the EES, the Supreme Court ruled.
“In light of these undisputed facts, we conclude that while the misconduct occurred over ten years ago and, according to the trial court, the plaintiff ‘apparently had an exemplary career as a trooper’ since then, the misconduct is nevertheless potentially exculpatory impeachment evidence ‘that is reasonably capable of being material to guilt or to punishment,’” the justices wrote.
The fact that a lower court judge deemed the trooper’s email lies did not need to be disclosed during other proceedings does not mean the incident can’t be disclosed at some point, the Supreme Court ruled. Whether an EES issue is disclosed to a defendant in a criminal case depends on the facts of the criminal case and does not reflect an opinion about the EES status.
“That the circuit court concluded that disclosure of that information to the criminal defendants in two separate criminal proceedings was not required does not necessarily mean that the court concluded that the information was not ‘potentially exculpatory,’ and that plaintiff’s name should be removed from the EES,” the Supreme Court ruled.
New Hampshire
Only a handful of New Hampshire farms are as old as the nation. Their endurance has relied on adaptability – Concord Monitor
Five major dairy farms populated the half-mile stretch of Upper City Road in Pittsfield where Tom Osborne’s childhood unfolded.
As he matured into young adulthood in the 1960s and 70s, the golden years of New England dairy were quietly waning in his backyard. All but one of those farms — enjoying the upward swing of technological progress in mechanical milking and refrigeration made during earlier decades — have deserted dairy, including the Osborne family, which sold its dairy cows in 1986.
Hours were long, and the work was unforgiving. Returns paled in comparison to those investments: The price of milk fluctuated with little predictability while investment grew costlier, often outweighing revenue. Towards the end of the lifetime of their dairy operation, Osborne remembers his late father, David, straining to eke out a third milking from their cows every day, one more than standard.
Resting on their shoulders was the endurance of a business already more than 200 years old. Now, the farm, founded in 1775, is marking its semiquincentennial, looking very different than how it did in the past.
“Over the years, we’ve had to evolve and not always do what we’ve always done. I think sometimes that’s a hard thing,” Osborne said. “You kind of feel like, ‘Hey, this is what we’ve always done, let’s keep doing what we do and what we know.’ But I think we’ve had to just learn.”
In 1976, the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food listed 56 legacy farms as enduring within the same family of owners for 200 years. As the nation now marks its semiquincentennial, 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, only a fraction of those farm enterprises remain, pastoral gems scattered across the state.
To shoulder the caprices of the industry, most have learned to adapt.
In 1938, a hurricane made landfall in Lebanon, tearing through Ascutney View Farm, razing a four-story chicken barn Susan Cole’s father had just built. When the storm subsided, family legend tells that there were chickens stranded in trees.
“Sometimes Mother Nature decides for us,” Cole said Friday morning, representing her family farm, founded in 1771, at the New Hampshire Farm, Forest and Garden Exposition. “You have to be a flexible mind.”
Her father passed away at 102, having worked their 1,100 acres of forested and pasture land his whole life. The 100 dairy cows Cole remembers showing as a child through 4H were gradually sold, and today, the family keeps 60 sheep and taps 2,100 maple trees. Her husband manages the brunt of the manual labor, but without her full-time work in real estate, Cole said the farm would not be viable.
“Having no outside income is not an option,” she said.
Their family’s approach isn’t altogether uncommon. In 2022, farmers in New Hampshire whose primary occupation was one other than farming outnumbered farmers who made their income primarily from their land, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nearly 60% had an off-farm job that they listed as their main source of income.
For the Osbornes, bifurcating the family business proved to be a more enduring shield against the financial riptides of the industry.
While his brother Paul maintains the farm, Tom Osborne inherited from his father an expanding retail chain, Osborne’s Farm and Garden Centers, with locations in Concord, Hooksett and Belmont.
The year after the family sold its cows, they opened their first Osborne’s Agway Store, selling farm supplies. The farm continued to see changes: Their small horticultural operation has plateaued over the years; land that used to sprout corn has been seeded for hay.
 100vw, 780px”/><figcaption class=)
Left to right: Heidi Bundy, Susan Cole and Tom Osborne, all owners of generational farms, speak at a panel at the New Hampshire Farm, Forest and Gardens Expo on Friday. Credit: REBECA PEREIRA / Monitor staff
Osborne cultivates 25,000 hay bales each season and resells more from other producers in his stores, but even the crop’s relative success hasn’t insulated the farm from uncontrollable, unpredictable challenges. The last two summers have yielded the best hay seasons in recent memory — for them and for their neighbors and competitors.
Hiring has rebounded in Osborne’s stores since COVID, but labor challenges still cast a long shadow over farm operations, especially for Heidi Bundy at Tomapo Farm in Lebanon.
Bundy knows the history of their land, inexorably entwined with the history of her family: In the mid 1800s, the family owned hundreds of sheep as wool boomed. They shifted to dairy with a herd of Jersey cows, which were displaced by black-and-white Holsteins by the time she was a child.
In 1970, her father and grandfather, by then equal business partners, reckoning with the decline of dairy, reached an impasse: either stay in or get out. They chose the latter.
During the ten years her grandfather, Howard Townsend, served as the state’s commissioner of agriculture, her father ran the farm himself, logging alone in the woods for months at a time. “We diversified, and we’ll probably continue to have to be diversified,” Bunday said.
That decisive hour came for the Osbornes’ dairy operation two years later. Around 1972, Osborne said, his father questioned whether to throw in the towel on dairy, choosing instead to prolong the inevitable.
“I think my dad, in his later years, regretted taking on more debt to stay afloat,” he said.
Their farms, generational bulwarks, have lived continuous evolutions.
The future approaches with greater uncertainty.
Of Bundy’s five children, she said none feel compelled to take on the farm. She’s promised her parents a place to live out the remainder of their days, and she’s going to “keep on doing what I can do” to ensure that she honors her word.
“If I have to leave the farm, I can do it,” she reflected. “I won’t be happy about it, though.”
The preliminary injunction ordering SchoolCare to continue paying Dover educators’ health care claims may have implications for the 89 other school districts that paid SchoolCare’s special assessment, according to Anthony Carr of Shaheen and Gordon.
“This could be significant for those 89 other towns and districts,” said Carr, who is representing Superintendent Christine Boston in the lawsuit against SchoolCare.
SchoolCare threatened to stop paying claims on May 1 if Dover failed to pay a special assessment of $1.7 million above and beyond its normal monthly premium in order to cover the insurance risk pool’s losses. Dover refused to pay the special assessment, arguing that it was illegal.
Superior Court Judge John Curran, finding that school employees covered by SchoolCare could face “irreparable harm,” ordered SchoolCare to continue to pay “covered healthcare claims of Dover employees, spouses, dependents, and retirees.”
Curran also found that if the case went to trial, Dover would “likely succeed on the merits” of its case.
Whether the case will go to trial remains an open question, as the judge has not ruled on the claims of SchoolCare and the New Hampshire Secretary of State that the court is not the proper jurisdiction for Dover’s complaint.
“The court will duly consider the important jurisdictional question this case presents in ruling upon those pending motions to dismiss …,” Judge Curran wrote. “For the purposes of this motion, the court finds that the plaintiffs have a sufficient likelihood of establishing jurisdiction at this stage.”
Carr said the order for the preliminary injunction is “very helpful, very favorable.” However, the only “asterisk” is that there is a pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Favorable ruling hinges on pending jurisdictional argument
Both New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, through the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation and its counsel, which intervened, and SchoolCare, have filed motions to dismiss the case with jurisdictional arguments.
“The Bureau respectfully asks this Court to dismiss the District’s Complaint in its entirety because the claims contained therein fall under the Bureau’s exclusive jurisdiction and authority and are best submitted to the Bureau’s administrative enforcement mechanism,” according to court documents.
SchoolCare has argued the plaintiffs can’t show a “likelihood of success on the merits” as the matter needs to be brought before the secretary of state, not the Superior Court.
“Basically, SchoolCare and the Secretary of State are trying to argue that none of these claims brought by Dover, none of these claims brought by Dr. Boston, should be in any court in the state, and these are all issues that should be squarely and solely resolved by the Secretary of State. So that’s really the only lingering issue in that regard,” said Carr.
The lawyer said they’re “hopeful,” based on their comprehension of the law, that a “favorable ruling” will soon come out on the jurisdiction argument.
“Once the jurisdictional issue is resolved, it will be much more clear that the 89 towns and districts likely have causes of action, similar breach of contract actions against SchoolCare to recoup the funds that they were forced to pay under duress, and SchoolCare may not have had a lawful basis to request or receive those funds,” Carr said.
89 members who paid assessment could follow Dover’s lead
Carr explained what the preliminary injunction could mean to the other districts and towns.
“If the jurisdiction were to get resolved favorably, then what those 89 towns and districts would be able to do is piggyback this order, which although it’s directly granting a preliminary injunction, what it’s inherently doing as part of that is saying that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our claim. And one of those claims is the breach of contract claims. So, if we were to be successful on jurisdiction, those other 89 towns and districts would be pretty wise to say that they very well may have viable claims as well,” said Carr.
“This order recognizes that all 89 of those towns and districts may have legal rights to recoup those funds and redeploy them for the betterment of their communities and children, including going toward educational services and staffing. I hope that other towns and school districts will follow the lead of Dover and Dr. Boston and stand up to SchoolCare and demand what’s right,” Carr said in a press release.
He called the judge’s ruling a “huge win for Dover.”
He highlighted one of the immediate results being that district teachers and staff “don’t have to worry about coverage stopping in the middle of a policy period. That’s amazing. We heard stories about a kid who was scheduled to have heart surgery. I believe a staff member needed a kidney transplant. And so, the stakes are very high. And these are people, real humans in Dover, who were worried about how this might go,” said Carr.
“On the flip side, if Dover was forced to pay the ransom, we offered testimony that $1.7 million is the equivalent of about 16 and a half full-time salaries. And we’ve seen in other towns and districts, not just the budget being thrown into crisis, but again, real humans with families being laid off. So it both preserves the status quo for the health coverage for all the fantastic teachers and staff in Dover. And it also, at least for the time being, precludes great teachers and staff within Dover from being laid off,” Carr said.
“I would not want to be the 89th or the 88th town or district that pursues recourse. I think it’s important to act urgently,” said Carr. “I guess I’m on a bit of a personal mission to kind of see all these issues through and to make sure that SchoolCare does not benefit from its own improper conduct. So, we will see what the future holds, but I may very well be representing some of these towns and districts. I would say there’s really no need for any of the towns and districts to wait (for the jurisdictional issue),” said Carr.
Portsmouth agreed to pay assessment ‘under protest’
Trevor McCourt, Portsmouth’s deputy city attorney, said “the city of Portsmouth has not made payment on the $1.57 million assessment at this time. We’ve made arrangement to make that payment by July 15th of this year, and the City Council’s vote was specifically to authorize that payment under protest.”
McCourt said “the last act of the City Council was to agree to make that payment under protest. Certainly, I don’t know what the plan will be moving forward. We plan to make the payment. We continue to make our monthly payments.”
He said they’re “certainly encouraged” by the ruling out of the Strafford Superior Court, and that he personally has already commented “pretty publicly, I agree with the position that Dover is taking.”
What’s next for the case?
Carr said right now, they have “a laser focus on an order on the jurisdictional issue, just so we can make sure that we’ve got the green light to keep these claims in court where we feel like they belong.”
Carr said if they receive a favorable ruling on jurisdiction, they’re attention will be on prosecuting their case and going to trial if needed.
“One of the elements of getting a preliminary injunction is the court has to find a likelihood of succeeding on the merits, meaning that the court is not quite, but kind of pre-adjudicating whether our claims are going to win or not,” said Carr. “So, for the court to find at this early stage that we’ve met that threshold is a great indication, but it doesn’t necessarily mean game over. What it means game over for is that Dover does not have to pay the $1.7 million now. The case will proceed on a 12-month trial track after this, and whether it’s through a jury trial or through pre-trial briefing, we will be hopeful to get a result saying that we never have to pay the $1.7 million.”
The New Hampshire Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at Saturday, May 2, 2026 results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from May 2 drawing
25-37-42-52-65, Powerball: 14, Power Play: 3
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 3 numbers from May 2 drawing
Day: 6-4-6
Evening: 0-7-6
Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 4 numbers from May 2 drawing
Day: 6-3-8-5
Evening: 4-4-5-7
Check Pick 4 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Megabucks Plus numbers from May 2 drawing
01-07-10-19-32, Megaball: 05
Check Megabucks Plus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from May 2 drawing
06-17-31-42-50, Bonus: 02
Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
When are the New Hampshire Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 10:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Pick 3, 4: 1:10 p.m. and 6:55 p.m. daily.
- Mega Millions: 11:00 p.m. Tuesday and Friday.
- Megabucks Plus: 7:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Lucky for Life: 10:38 p.m. daily.
- Gimme 5: 6:55 p.m. Monday through Friday.
- Millionaire for Life: 11:15 p.m. daily.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a New Hampshire managing editor. You can send feedback using this form.
-
Mississippi4 minutes agoMississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for May 3, 2026
-
Missouri10 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for May 3, 2026
-
Montana16 minutes agoTaxidermist restores historic Montana elk mounts
-
Nebraska22 minutes agoWho’s who in the race for District 38
-
Nevada28 minutes ago
Viking preps 63-hole tungsten drilling blitz in Nevada
-
New Hampshire34 minutes ago
Only a handful of New Hampshire farms are as old as the nation. Their endurance has relied on adaptability – Concord Monitor
-
New Jersey40 minutes ago
NJ Lottery Pick-3, Pick-4, Cash 5, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Sunday, May 3
-
New Mexico46 minutes agoAs parks increase but budget stays flat, mayor says city of Santa Fe needs to have ‘hard conversations’