State of New Hampshire v. Roger Dana

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed Roger Dana’s conviction for first degree murder and sentence of life without parole. The court held that admitting the grandmother’s statements as excited utterances was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any error in admitting an investigator’s testimony was also harmless. The court further held that the trial court acted within its discretion by declining to give a false-exculpatory-statement instruction concerning other witnesses.

Holdings

1. The trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by admitting the grandmother's statements as excited utterances because the twenty-four-hour delay and intervening activities provided too much time for reflective thought and showed that the effect of the startling event had subsided.
2. The error in admitting the grandmother's statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require reversal.
3. The court did not decide whether the investigator's testimony was hearsay because any possible error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. The trial court acted within its discretion by declining to instruct the jury that it could consider false exculpatory statements allegedly made by witnesses other than the defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the grandmother's statements as excited utterances despite the twenty-four-hour delay and intervening activities.
2. Whether the admission of the lead investigator's testimony that other individuals had been interviewed to account for their whereabouts constituted reversible hearsay error.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to expand the false-exculpatory-statement jury instruction to statements allegedly made by witnesses other than the defendant.

Disposition

affirmed