State v. Addison

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Michael Addison’s convictions for conspiracy to commit criminal threatening and reckless conduct. The court held that informing prospective jurors about Addison’s unrelated pending murder charge did not violate his rights to due process or an impartial jury. It also held that the jury-selection method complied with RSA chapter 500-A’s requirement that prospective jurors be selected at random, rejecting an equal-probability definition of randomness.

Holdings

1. The trial court's use of an instruction informing the venire about Addison's separate, highly publicized murder indictment did not violate the State or Federal Constitutions. Even assuming a heightened level of due process applied, the instruction satisfied due process because it disclosed the source of potential publicity, explained the presumption of innocence and the jurors' duty of impartiality, and allowed jurors to reveal any inability to set aside bias.
2. RSA chapter 500-A does not require an equal-probability or statistically random selection process. The jury-selection method used in Addison's case, including the use of blended source lists, possible duplicate names, and an every-nth selection interval, did not violate the statute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court violated Addison's due-process and fair-and-impartial-jury rights by informing the venire that he had been indicted for the murder of Officer Michael Briggs and by using a VandeBogart-based instruction.
2. Whether the method used to select prospective grand and petit jurors violated RSA chapter 500-A's requirement that jurors be selected at random.

Disposition

affirmed