State v. Owen Labrie, 171 N.H. 475

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed Owen Labrie's convictions for sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and using computer services for a prohibited purpose. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the computer-services conviction under RSA 649-B:4, I(a), including evidence of the defendant's intent derived from communications and surrounding conduct. The court also concluded that the defendant waived his confrontation claim by failing to renew his request to recall a witness for cross-examination.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because RSA 649-B:4, I(a) does not require the defendant's computer communications to contain explicit sexual content, an explicit request for sexual contact, or deception. The defendant's intent could be inferred from the totality of his communications and conduct before, during, and after the encounter.
2. The defendant waived his confrontation-rights challenge by failing to supplement his offer of proof or request that the State's witness be recalled after the trial court reconsidered its initial ruling and offered him an opportunity to conduct sanitized cross-examination.
3. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to interrupt or correct the prosecutor's alleged misstatements about the location and significance of semen, sperm, and DNA evidence. The statements were not sufficiently egregious to require sua sponte intervention, and the jury instructions that attorney argument is not evidence were adequate to cure any imprecision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant knowingly used a computer service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a person believed to be under sixteen to commit an offense under New Hampshire's sexual-assault statute.
2. Whether the defendant preserved a confrontation-rights challenge to the exclusion of proposed cross-examination concerning a State witness's alleged motive or bias.
3. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to sua sponte correct alleged prosecutorial misstatements concerning semen, sperm, and DNA evidence during closing argument.

Disposition

affirmed