Summary
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the State bears the burden of proving whether seized property is contraband under RSA 595-A:6. The court further held that the statute does not require a person seeking return of a firearm to submit a specified affidavit or background check, and that speculation about possible firearm-disqualification status is insufficient to establish good cause to withhold the property. The order denying the motion for return of the firearm was vacated and the case was remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RSA 595-A:6 requires a person seeking return of a seized firearm to submit a specified firearm-return form and undergo a background check.
- Whether the defendant's refusal to complete the form and submit to a background check constituted good cause under RSA 595-A:6 to withhold the firearm.
- Which party bears the burden of proving that seized property is contraband under RSA 595-A:6.
Holdings
- The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that seized property is contraband under RSA 595-A:6.
- RSA 595-A:6 does not require an individual seeking return of seized evidence, after establishing ownership, to submit the NHJB-2055-DFS motion and affidavit or undergo a background check.
- Speculation that a defendant may be legally disqualified from possessing a firearm, together with the defendant's refusal to comply with a court-imposed background-check requirement, does not establish good cause under RSA 595-A:6.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we hold that the State bears the burden of proof as to whether an item is contraband under RSA 595-A:6.” (79)
“RSA 595-A:6 does not require the submission of the NHJB-2055-DFS motion and affidavit by an individual seeking the return of seized evidence once ownership of the property in question has been established.” (79)
“The State's speculation that the defendant might be disqualified from possessing a firearm by federal or state law is not evidence; therefore, it cannot support a finding of good cause.” (80)
Factual background
Pessetto was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm without a license and transporting alcoholic beverages. After the criminal proceedings ended, he sought return of a confiscated Glock Model 17 and submitted an affidavit asserting ownership and stating that no legal disability prevented him from possessing a firearm. The trial court required a standardized form and background check, but the State introduced no evidence that the firearm was contraband or that Pessetto was legally prohibited from possessing it. When Pessetto did not complete the form, the trial court denied his motion.
Procedural history
Pessetto was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm without a license and transporting alcoholic beverages. After the criminal proceedings concluded, he sought return of his firearm under RSA 595-A:6. The Candia District Court required him to complete a firearm-return form and submit to a background check, then denied the motion when he did not comply. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated and remanded.
Remand instructions
The trial court must reconsider the defendant's motion for return of the firearm consistently with the opinion, including placing the burden on the State to prove whether the firearm is contraband and requiring evidence rather than speculation to establish good cause.