Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed John Jordan’s convictions for reckless second-degree assault and simple assault. The court held that admitting a redacted 911 recording did not constitute an unsustainable exercise of discretion under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403, and that statements by dispatchers and the 911 operator were not hearsay because they were admitted for context rather than for their truth. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the simple-assault conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting the redacted 911 recording.
- Whether statements by the 911 operator and police dispatch operator on the recording were inadmissible hearsay.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Jordan's conviction for simple assault against Selg, including proof of physical contact and unprivileged contact.
Holdings
- The trial court did not commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion by admitting the redacted 911 recording because its substantial probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- The statements by the 911 operator and police dispatch operator were properly admitted because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted, but to place the witnesses' statements in context and provide background for the call.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jordan hit Selg and that the contact was unprivileged.
Key quotations
“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” (148 N.H. at 117-18)
“Where “an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to evidence the matter asserted, but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply.”” (148 N.H. at 119)
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, based upon all the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it, when considered in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.” (148 N.H. at 120)
Factual background
Jordan returned home after learning that Scott Selg was at the residence helping Jordan's wife, Patricia Lance, with gardening. Jordan confronted Selg, the two men exchanged blows, and Jordan then pushed Lance to the ground, fracturing her arm. During a contemporaneous 911 call and in statements made shortly afterward, witnesses reported that Jordan had assaulted Selg and Lance. The State introduced the 911 recording and other out-of-court statements, and the jury convicted Jordan of reckless second-degree assault and simple assault.
Procedural history
A jury in the superior court convicted Jordan of one count of reckless second-degree assault and one count of simple assault. The superior court admitted a redacted 911 recording, denied Jordan's motions to dismiss the simple-assault charge, and entered convictions. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.