Opinion ID: 1887538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Dismiss Pattern Indictment

Text: The defendant first argues that the pattern indictment failed to allege the offense with the requisite specificity to enable him to prepare a defense. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15. Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution requires that an indictment describe the offense with sufficient specificity to ensure that the defendant can prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy. State v. Davis, 149 N.H. 698, 704, 828 A.2d 293 (2003). To be constitutional, the indictment must contain the elements of the offense and enough facts to notify the defendant of the specific charges. Id. An indictment generally is sufficient if it recites the language of the relevant statute; it need not specify the means by which the crime was accomplished or other facts that are not essential to the elements of the crime. Id. The pattern variant of AFSA is set forth in RSA 632-A:2, III, which provides, in relevant part: A person is guilty of [AFSA] when such person engages in a pattern of sexual assault against another person ... who is less than 16 years of age. A pattern of sexual assault means committing more than one act under RSA 632-A:2 ... upon the same victim over a period of 2 months or more and within a period of 5 years. RSA 632-A:1, I-c (2007). Consistent with these statutes, the pattern indictment alleged that on or about May 1999 through and including April 2000 at Hillsborough, New Hampshire, the defendant committed AFSA in that he did knowingly engage in a pattern of sexual assault on [the victim], a child under the age of 16, by committing more than one act of [AFSA] or felonious sexual assault or both over a period of two months or more and within a period of five years. The pattern indictment alleged the elements of the offense, as well as facts sufficient to allow the defendant to prepare a defense. See State v. Hannon, 151 N.H. 708, 718, 867 A.2d 426 (2005). It specified a location for the alleged conduct-Hillsborough, a time period in which it was alleged to have occurred-May 1999 through April 2000, and the identity and age of the victim. It also specified the conduct against which the defendant was required to defend: a pattern of sexual assault, defined as committing more than one act of AFSA or felonious sexual assault or both, upon the same victim, over a period of two months or more and within a period of five years. See id. ; RSA 632-A:2, III; RSA 632-A:1, I-c. The indictment, therefore, informed the defendant of the offense with which he was charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare for trial. See Davis, 149 N.H. at 704, 828 A.2d 293. The defendant argues that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege the predicate acts comprising the pattern of sexual assault. Contrary to his assertions, the individual acts of sexual contact underlying the pattern do not constitute elements of the pattern crime, and, therefore, need not be alleged. See State v. Fortier, 146 N.H. 784, 791, 780 A.2d 1243 (2001). Our legislature created RSA 632-A:2, III to respond to the legitimate concern that many young victims, who have been subject to repeated, numerous incidents of sexual assault over a period of time by the same assailant, are unable to identify discrete acts of molestation. Id. at 790, 780 A.2d 1243. The essential culpable act under the pattern statute, therefore, is the pattern itself, and not the specific assaults that comprise it. Id. at 791, 780 A.2d 1243. Because the indictment here alleged the essential elements of the pattern offense, as well as additional facts, such as the time frame and location in which the assaults allegedly occurred, we hold that the defendant's ability to prepare a defense was not impaired by the indictment's failure to allege more specifically the predicate acts comprising the pattern. We note that there is no evidence in the record submitted on appeal that the defendant requested a bill of particulars.