State v. Gero

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that RSA 595-A:6 requires a court to order forfeiture before it may order the sale or destruction of seized property. It further held that forfeiture of noncontraband property in the public interest requires a relationship between the property and the crime or circumstances in which returning it would seriously undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Because the trial court did not apply this standard or explain its reasoning, the court vacated the destruction order in part and remanded.

Holdings

1. Under RSA 595-A:6, a court may order seized property sold or destroyed only after first ordering that the property be forfeited.
2. Noncontraband property may be forfeited under RSA 595-A:6 when, considering the totality of the circumstances, the property either directly relates to the acts underlying the crime by influencing the defendant's behavior or being relevant to the crime's psychological or physical circumstances, or returning it would be so offensive to basic concepts of decency and public confidence in the criminal justice system that forfeiture is warranted.
3. The trial court's order forfeiting and destroying the remaining seized property was unsustainable because the court did not have the benefit of the newly announced test and did not explain its conclusion that the public interest required forfeiture and destruction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 595-A:6 permits a court to order seized property sold or destroyed without first ordering that the property be forfeited.
2. Whether noncontraband property may be forfeited in the public interest under RSA 595-A:6, and what standard governs that determination.
3. Whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by ordering the remaining firearms and ammunition forfeited and destroyed without applying the governing public-interest standard or making explanatory findings.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded