State v. Brown, 159 N.H. 544

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed Sean D. Brown’s convictions on four counts of selling a narcotic drug. The court held that the charges arising from separate controlled-buy episodes were logically and factually connected under Superior Court Rule 97-A and that joinder was not contrary to the best interests of justice. It also upheld the exclusion of prior-conviction evidence offered to impeach the cooperating witness under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2).

Holdings

1. Offenses arising from separate criminal episodes are related when they are closely connected with respect to the charged conduct and the evidence used to prove the charges, in a manner that does not solely demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit crime. Relevant factors include temporal and spatial relationship, common victims or participants, similarity of modus operandi, duplication of law regarding the crimes charged, and duplication of witnesses, testimony, and other evidence. The four narcotics-sale charges satisfied that standard.
2. Joinder of the four related offenses was not contrary to the best interests of justice. The defendant failed to show that the trial court's determination was clearly untenable or unreasonable to his prejudice.
3. The trial court properly excluded the cooperating witness's prior conviction because the defendant did not provide sufficient documentation from which the court could readily determine that the elements of the Massachusetts offense required proof or admission of dishonesty or false statement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether four narcotics-sale charges arising from separate criminal episodes were related offenses subject to joinder under Superior Court Rule 97-A(I)(A)(iii).
2. Whether joinder was contrary to the best interests of justice under Superior Court Rule 97-A(I)(B) because it prejudiced Brown by permitting propensity reasoning or by allowing stronger evidence on some charges to bolster weaker charges.
3. Whether the trial court erred under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) by excluding the cooperating witness's Massachusetts conviction for witness intimidation when the defendant did not provide documentation identifying the applicable statute or the elements of the offense.

Disposition

affirmed