State v. Jonathan L. Woodbury

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Jonathan L. Woodbury’s convictions and sentences for falsifying physical evidence and two counts of assault by a prisoner. The court held that the evidence was sufficient, that RSA 641:6 did not require an instruction defining an “official investigation,” and that multiple assault sentences did not violate double jeopardy or related constitutional protections. The court also upheld the denial of a mutual-combat instruction.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the circumstantial evidence excluded all reasonable conclusions except that Woodbury knew or believed an investigation was pending or about to be instituted and cleaned up the blood with the purpose of impairing its verity or availability.
2. RSA 641:6, I creates two alternative types of inquiries—official proceedings and investigations—and the word 'official' modifies 'proceeding' but not 'investigation.' Because 'investigation' has its plain and ordinary meaning and is not ambiguous, the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on an 'official investigation.'
3. The multiple sentences did not violate double-jeopardy protections, charging-document clarity, or juror-unanimity requirements because the evidence established three distinct unprivileged physical contacts and the jury was instructed to consider each charge separately and unanimously.
4. The trial court did not err by failing to give a mutual-combat instruction sua sponte, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to request one, because the evidence did not support a rational finding that Moriarty expressly or implicitly consented to mutual combat.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Woodbury's conviction for falsifying physical evidence.
2. Whether RSA 641:6, I requires the State to prove that the defendant believed an official investigation, rather than merely an investigation, was pending or about to be instituted, and whether the jury should have been so instructed.
3. Whether imposing multiple sentences for two assault-by-prisoner convictions arising from three separate strikes violated double-jeopardy protections, charging clarity, or juror-unanimity requirements.
4. Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the mutual-combat defense.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a mutual-combat instruction.

Disposition

affirmed