State v. Cossette

151 N.H. 355 (2004) · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · August 31, 2004

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault. The court held that any error in joining the charges was harmless, that sufficient evidence established the defendant’s position of authority and coercion, and that the trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Writing for the Court
Duggan, J.; Dalianis, J.; Galway, J.
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire
Decision date
August 31, 2004
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault after a jury trial, challenging joinder of the charges, sufficiency of the evidence concerning his position of authority and coercion, and denial of a motion for a new trial and hearing.
Standard of review
Misjoinder is reviewed for harmless error, with the State required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed by asking whether, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A ruling on newly discovered evidence is sustained unless clearly unreasonable, and denial of an oral argument or evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, requiring a showing that the decision was clearly unreasonable and prejudicial.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Parties
Thomas P. Cossette v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestatutory interpretationharmless errorappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate litigationevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether joinder of unrelated criminal charges was harmless error.
  2. Whether sufficient evidence established that Cossette occupied a position of authority over the victim and used that authority to coerce her to submit under RSA 632-A:2, I(k).
  3. Whether the trial court improperly denied Cossette's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without holding a hearing.

Holdings

  1. Assuming that joinder of the unrelated charges was improper, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the verdict showed that the jury considered the charges separately, the evidence supporting the convictions was overwhelming, and Cossette's own admissions diminished the prejudicial effect of evidence concerning the other alleged assaults.
  2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cossette held a position of authority over the victim and used that authority to coerce her to submit to sexual penetration.
  3. The trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial because the alleged new evidence would have been admissible only to impeach the victim, would not probably produce a different result, and did not undermine the compelling evidence supporting the conviction.
  4. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying a hearing because the defendant's motion, affidavits, and responses to objections provided a sufficient opportunity to be heard, and the defendant failed to show an unreasonable and prejudicial denial.

Key quotations

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that an error is harmless only if it is determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by the error. (151 N.H. at 357)
The statute does not define “position of authority.” (151 N.H. at 359)
This case falls squarely within the parameters of coercion by subtle persuasion that we identified in Fortier. (151 N.H. at 361)

Factual background

Cossette was the assistant manager of a Subway restaurant where the fifteen-year-old victim worked. The victim testified that Cossette used his supervisory relationship with her to obtain oral sex during an encounter at the restaurant and that he physically compelled her to submit. Her account was corroborated by testimony concerning her immediate distress and Cossette's admission that something had happened and that he knew it was wrong. Cossette admitted that sexual contact occurred but claimed it was consensual.

Procedural history

A grand jury indicted Cossette on six counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and one count of felonious sexual assault. The Superior Court granted the State's motion to join the charges, and a jury convicted Cossette on two AFSA counts while acquitting him on the remaining charges. Before sentencing, the State entered a nolle prosequi on one conviction. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…