State v. Chrisicos, 158 N.H. 82

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed a challenge to the constitutionality of RSA 262:23, which permits home confinement for certain habitual-offender sentences where the applicable county correctional facility has a home confinement program. The court held that the statute did not violate equal protection under either the New Hampshire or United States Constitution, reversed the trial court's constitutional ruling, and affirmed the defendant's sentence.

Holdings

1. RSA 262:23, I, does not violate the New Hampshire Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because allowing each county to determine whether to establish a home-confinement program is rationally related to conceivable legitimate governmental interests, including cost-benefit evaluation and correctional-cost savings.
2. RSA 262:23, I, does not violate the Federal Equal Protection Clause under the same rational-basis analysis applied under the New Hampshire Constitution.
3. The court did not decide whether RSA 262:23 permits home confinement for a defendant sentenced on two concurrent habitual-offender violations; it assumed, without deciding, that the defendant was eligible and resolved the appeal on the constitutional issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 262:23, which permits home confinement only where the applicable county correctional facility has a home-confinement program, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. Whether the same statutory classification violates the Federal Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether the defendant was eligible for home confinement for concurrent sentences arising from two habitual-offender violations.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded