Opinion ID: 2553651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant was convicted on three counts of AFSA, stemming from his sexual penetration of A.G. on the night she returned from North Conway. To convict the defendant of these offenses as charged, the jury had to find that the defendant was a member of the same household as the victim. See RSA 632-A:2, I(j)(1) (A person is guilty of the felony of aggravated felonious sexual assault if such person engages in sexual penetration with another person ... [when] ... the victim is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age and ... the actor is a member of the same household as the victim.). At the close of the State's evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the AFSA charges on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that he was a member of A.G.'s household. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court's ruling was legally erroneous. To successfully challenge sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424, 839 A.2d 8 (2003). The term household member is not defined in the statute. The trial court did not define household member for the jury, but instead instructed that the term was self-explanatory. We have previously declined to define the term. See State v. Hearns, 151 N.H. 226, 855 A.2d 549 (2004); State v. Paglierani, 139 N.H. 37, 648 A.2d 209 (1994). In Hearns, we upheld the use of a jury instruction that stated: A household is a group of persons living in the same residence maintaining a single economic unit. Household members include any person who is a member of and participates and contributes to the maintenance of the household. Such a definition may include children who are under parental-type control of a person other than a parent. Such a definition would not include a [boarder] or a tenant in a rooming house. Hearns, 151 N.H. at 234-35, 855 A.2d 549 (quotation omitted). The dictionary provides this definition of household: those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family: a domestic establishment; specif: a social unit comprised of those living together in the same dwelling place. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1096 (unabridged ed. 2002). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence that at the relevant time the defendant was a member of the same household as A.G. He participated in and contributed to the maintenance of the household. Both he and his son spent every night at A.G.'s home. The defendant was in an intimate relationship with A.G.'s mother, Lisa, and occasionally drove her to work. He cooked or helped with the cooking in the evening. The defendant's son slept in A.G.'s room, in the same bed as her brother. The defendant took the two boys to day camp in the mornings while Lisa was at work. Lisa testified that he was basically taking care of the kids. He told Lisa that he would pay half the purchase price of a necklace for A.G. He took A.G. on an outing to Hampton Beach. The defendant told Detective Riel that he was trying to be a father figure to A.G. and had given her gifts because her father did not treat her well. In arguing to the contrary, the defendant focuses on the facts that he and Lisa concealed the nature of their relationship from the children and that A.G. was absent from the home for most of the time that the defendant was staying there. We are not persuaded. The defendant and his son were nightly residents, not occasional visitors, at the Cypress Street apartment. Further, as we recognized in Paglierani, the short duration of a victim's presence in the household is not dispositive. Paglierani, 139 N.H. at 39, 648 A.2d 209. The victim in that case was a fifteen-year-old ward of the state who attended a boarding school and spent the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays in the defendant's home. Id. at 38, 648 A.2d 209. We concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that the victim was a member of the defendant's household because she was subject to parental-like control while with the defendant's family. Id. at 39, 648 A.2d 209. In sum, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to support a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant and the victim were members of the same household. Affirmed.