Aug 28, 2014
Aug 21, 2014
Aug 14, 2014
Jul 24, 2014
Manchester Crimewatch: Hearing set for 17-year-old accused of arson at school
Sharron Beaule, 17, of 420 Maple St., was arraigned Thursday on a felony arson charge that alleges Beaule set a fire in a school bathroom March 23.
Beaule is accused of using a lighter to set fire to a toilet paper dispenser, burning his fingers in the process, and then asking his teacher for a pass to go to the nurse, claiming he had burned his fingers in hot water while washing his hands.
Court documents show an assistant principal told police that Beaule said, "I like to watch things burn."
Beaule is free on $5,000 personal recognizance bail.
Not behind the wheel?
A woman accused of leaving the scene of an accident and of claiming she wasn't the driver they wanted was arraigned Thursday in Circuit Court-Manchester District Division on charges of conduct after an accident and false report of a motor vehicle accident.
Brittany Hunt, 23, of 51 W. Wilson St., is accused of hitting the back of a woman's car at Hanover and Chestnut streets Feb. 13, causing damage, and leaving the scene without stopping. She's also accused of later denying she was the driver, repeating a story told by her boyfriend that he was the driver.
Court documents show that three witnesses told police that Hunt was the driver of the car, whose front license plate as well as some debris, was found at the scene. Hunt's boyfriend told police that he was driving the car and Hunt was a front seat passenger and her child was in the back and that the couple went to Market Basket right after the crash.
Court documents show that video from Market Basket showed the vehicle entering the parking lot and Hunt, carrying a child, entering the store by herself.
When police spoke with Hunt, she told them the same story as her boyfriend, according to the court documents.
Hunt's criminal record consists of resisting arrest, theft of services, criminal trespass and theft by deception. Trial was set for July 10. Bail is $2,000 personal recognizance.
Denies hitting woman
Pedro Jimenez, 31, pleaded innocent Thursday in Circuit Court-Manchester District Division to a simple assault charge that alleges he struck his longtime girlfriend in the face following an argument at their residence at 228 Karatzas Ave.
Jimenez, who said his address is now 7 Sears Drive, told Judge Gregory Michael, "I been with this girl for 13 years," adding that they have a son. "I've never hit her," he assured Michael.
But court documents show the alleged victim told police that they had been watching a movie when Jimenez decided to go to the store and told her to pause the video. When he returned, he became angry because she hadn't paused the movie and was watching it.
She told police he called her names, slammed doors and went for her purse, to get money and her EBT card. According to the court documents, she grabbed for the purse and he swung, hitting her in the face. Officers responding to the call noted redness on her nose.
Jimenez told officers they had argued, but he said the argument did not become physical. In court, Jimenez told Michael he didn't know where the assault charge came from. "The public is not in danger from me," he said.
Police prosecutors had sought $5,000 cash/surety bail, but Michael set bail at $1,000 cash/surety, with conditions that include no contact with the alleged victim and not going to her residence.
Trial was set for May 22.
Tried to prevent arrest
Katie Rackliff, 31, of 57 Cleveland St., pleaded innocent Thursday in Circuit Court-Manchester District Division to misdemeanor charges of simple assault, obstructing government administration and resisting arrest. Trial was set for June 19. Rackliff is free on $1,000 personal recognizance bail.
Rackliff was arrested April 2. She alleged grabbed at and interfered with an officer attempt to arrest another person, swung her arms and fist hitting an officer in the arm, and pulled away from an officer seeking to arrest her.
Police reported they had gone to the apartment to arrest Rackliff's brother-in-law, but she and other family members, including two of her children became involved in the escalating effort to prevent the arrest.
Judge Gregory Michael told Rackliff she also owed a fee for failing to appear in court in 2010 on dog license and forfeiture matters. Michael noted she was cited on those issues exactly three years ago, on April 18.
"I can't pay it 'til the first," Rackliff said, so Michael put those matters on for June 19, the same day as her trial on the April charges.
READER COMMENTS: 2
- NH killer in 1991 Smart trial seeks time with wife - 6
- Newport shooting victim in stable but critical condition - 0
- Nashua arrests 9 on drug warrants - 0
- Police: Nashua man in car targeted by gunfire was felon with gun - 1
- Man shot at in Nashua drive-by charged with unrelated possession of stolen gun - 0
- NH Supreme Court rules 4 teen killers entitled to sentencing hearings - 6
- Hampton woman who fatally struck pedestrian wants blood test thrown out of court - 1
- Man seeks to upend conviction in Deerfield home invasion case - 0
- Police say North Hampton man distributed child sex abuse images - 0
READER COMMENTS: 1
- Nashua South edges Manchester Memorial in girls soccer action - 0
- Goffstown's Bourque impresses; Memorial, Bishop Guertin, Pinkerton win in Queen City Jamboree - 0
- Hanover boys soccer edges defense-minded BG - 0
- NH Fisher Cats, Pierre stun Rock Cats in 4-3 win - 0
- Helping hands for new St. Anselm students in Manchester on move in day - 0
- To market, to market: Market Basket shoppers flock on in - 9
- Nashua Market Basket employee: 'Worth every day of work lost' - 10
- NH teen killers to get sentence reviews after state Supreme Court decision - 5
- Lakes Region Casino for sale last two months; asking price $3.5 million, manager says - 2
Where is Shaheen? Hiding from you
Enter to win tickets to see Paula Poundstone
Win tickets to see Steven Wright
Hooksett highs: A good multiple choice test
- Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has found upskirt photos taken on a subway aren't illegal. Should such voyeurism be a crime?
- Total Votes: 917