Opinion ID: 2759151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Current Indictments

Text: In December 2011, the State obtained the current indictments against the defendant, which all concern the day on which he shot and killed Gosselin. The second degree murder charge is substantially the same as the prior second degree murder charges. It alleges that the defendant “recklessly caused the death of . . . Gosselin under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life by shooting . . . Gosselin in the back with a gun.” The attempted armed robbery charge alleges that the defendant “with a purpose that the crime of robbery be committed, purposely threatened another with physical force or put another in fear of immediate use of physical force while armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, in the course of committing a theft, which, under the circumstances as [the defendant] believed them to be, constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of robbery.” The unlawful possession charge alleges that the defendant “knowingly had in his possession or under his control a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver.” The criminal threatening charge alleges that the defendant “purposely placed or attempted to place Chad Diaz in fear of imminent bodily injury by pointing a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, at Chad Diaz.” Before trial on the December 2011 charges, the defendant moved to dismiss the attempted armed robbery, unlawful possession, and criminal threatening charges on the ground that those charges were brought outside of the six-year limitations period, which expired on August 30, 2011. See RSA 625:8, I (2007). The trial court denied the motion, deciding that the statute of limitations period for all three charges was tolled pursuant to RSA 625:8, VI(b) (2007). In a chambers conference on the fourth day of the jury trial, the court and the parties discussed potential jury instructions. The State proposed that the court instruct the jury that it could “presume the reckless and extreme indifference required for the crime of second degree murder” if the jury found “that the Defendant used a deadly weapon while attempting to commit the crime of robbery.” The State’s instruction was based upon RSA 630:1-b, I(b), which provides, in pertinent part, that the “recklessness and indifference” required to convict a defendant of reckless second degree murder “are presumed if the actor causes the death by the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, or in immediate flight after committing or attempting to commit any class A felony.” The defendant argued that the presumption instruction violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. On the next day of trial, the court informed the parties that it would give the presumption instruction proposed by the State. 4 The jury convicted the defendant on all of the charges. At sentencing, the defendant argued that, because of the presumption instruction, it would violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy to receive separate sentences for the second degree murder and attempted armed robbery charges. The trial court disagreed, and sentenced the defendant to thirty years to life on the second degree murder charge, ten to twenty years on the attempted armed robbery charge (to run consecutively to the sentence for second degree murder), ten to twenty years on the criminal threatening charge (to run concurrently with the sentence for attempted armed robbery), and five to ten years on the unlawful possession charge (to run concurrently with the sentences for attempted armed robbery and criminal threatening). II. State v. Locke and Defendant’s Non-Homicide Charges While the instant appeal was pending, we decided Locke. In that case, we adopted a “same criminal episode” test for the purposes of a common law rule of compulsory joinder of criminal offenses. Locke, 166 N.H. at 345. Although we recognized that the adoption of a new rule of criminal procedure ordinarily should be accomplished through rulemaking, we held that “the common law of New Hampshire incorporates the principles set forth in Model Penal Code Section 1.07(2).” Id. at 349. Under Model Penal Code Section
Except as provided in Subsection (3) of this Section, a defendant shall not be subject to separate trials for multiple offenses based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, if such offenses are known to the appropriate prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the first trial and are within the jurisdiction of a single court. Model Penal Code § 1.07(2) (1985). Model Penal Code Section 1.07(2) refers to Model Penal Code Section 1.07(3), which provides: Authority of Court to Order Separate Trials. When a defendant is charged with two or more offenses based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, the Court, on application of the prosecuting attorney or of the defendant, may order any such charge to be tried separately, if it is satisfied that justice so requires. Model Penal Code § 1.07(3) (1985). We did not adopt Model Penal Code Section 1.07(3) because Superior Court Criminal Rule 97-A and District Division Rule 2.9-A already authorize the trial courts to sever charges and order separate trials when it is in the interests of justice to do so. Locke, 166 N.H. at 349. 5 We held that our common law rule of compulsory joinder “applie[d] to the defendant and to all similar cases pending on direct review,” which means that it applies to the defendant in the instant appeal. Id. at 350. Thus, after we decided Locke, the defendant moved to add the compulsory joinder issue to his notice of appeal and allow for rebriefing and reargument. We allowed the defendant to add compulsory joinder as an issue and ordered supplemental briefing and reargument. In its supplemental memorandum, the State agrees that the defendant’s convictions of criminal threatening, falsifying physical evidence, and unlawful possession of a firearm must be vacated under Locke. The State concedes that those charges “either were based on the same conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the second degree murder charge on which a mistrial had been declared in the defendant’s initial trial.” The State also concedes that it “could have brought those [non-homicide] charges prior to [the defendant’s initial trial], and that [it] had no good reason for not joining [those] non [-]homicide charges at that earlier time.” In light of the State’s concessions, we vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal threatening, falsifying physical evidence, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The State argues that we should not vacate the defendant’s conviction of attempted armed robbery, however, because it had “good reason for not bringing [that] . . . charge prior to the defendant’s first trial.” The State does not dispute that the attempted armed robbery charge, like the other nonhomicide charges, arises from the same conduct or the same criminal episode as the second degree murder charge. Rather, the State asks that we recognize a limited “good cause” exception to our common law rule of mandatory joinder. The State argues that “good cause” exists in this case “because a subsequent trial would have occurred regardless of any new charges brought.” Here, the State observes, the defendant was going to be retried on the second degree murder charge after the jury in his first trial deadlocked on that charge. Thus, the State reasons, “weighty considerations of finality and associated interests recognized by this Court as a principal rationale for its rule of mandatory joinder . . . are inapplicable” to the attempted armed robbery charge “under the facts of this particular case.” In making these arguments, the State relies upon the standards for joinder adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justice Standards. The State contends that because we did not adopt the language of Model Penal Code Section 1.07(2) in Locke, we are free to adopt the ABA standards instead. To the contrary, a close reading of our decision in Locke reveals that we did adopt the language of Model Penal Code Section 1.07(2) at least until the Advisory Committee on Rules and/or the legislature has had an opportunity to consider the mandatory joinder issue. See id. at 348-50. Thus, the State’s argument on this point proceeds from a mistaken premise. Moreover, even if we were inclined to accept the State’s invitation, we find its 6 proffer of “good cause” unpersuasive. Indeed, were we to accept the State’s argument that the mere fact that there will be a retrial on some charges justifies it in bringing new charges that could have been, but were not, brought originally, this rationale would not be limited to the attempted armed robbery charge, but would extend to the defendant’s convictions for criminal threatening, falsifying evidence, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Having rejected the State’s argument, and in light of the State’s failure to dispute that the attempted armed robbery charge was based upon the same conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the second degree murder charge, we also vacate the defendant’s conviction of attempted armed robbery.