Court Opinion

ID: 9728809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:16:51.934522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:52.263058
License: Public Domain

KING, J.
The defendant was indicted for the offenses of aggravated assault, RSA 631:2 III, and hindering the apprehension of another, RSA 642:3 1(b). A trial by jury resulted in verdicts of guilty on charges of hindering apprehension and of the lesser included offense of simple assault, RSA 631:1.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the hindering apprehension charge based on insufficiency of evidence and also moved to suppress evidence of his three-year-old record of burglary convictions. Both motions were denied. After presentation of the evidence at trial, the defendant moved for directed verdicts on all indictments. These motions were also denied. The defendant seasonably excepted to the court’s rulings, and all questions of law were reserved and transferred by the Trial Court (Cann, J.).
On the evening of April 28,1978, the victim, Clark Craig, Sr., chief of the Antrim Police Department, was on routine patrol when a vehicle occupied by two persons passed his patrol car by crossing a double yellow line. After a pursuit at speeds approximating ninety miles an hour, the vehicles stopped at the Antrim-Bennington landfill. As both drivers left their vehicles, Chief Craig recognized the other operator as the defendant. When asked for his registration, the defendant responded: “[I]f you want anything from me, you’re going to have to get it.” Subsequent testimony adduced during the trial indicated that the motor vehicle was owned by Ernest Kelley, brother of the defendant.
As Chief Craig approached the Kelley vehicle, he was grabbed from behind and thrown to the ground by the defendant’s brother, Ernest, the passenger in the Kelley vehicle. The defendant then began *16striking the chief with his fists, as did his brother. Ernest Kelley then took the chiefs revolver, struck him with the gun and fired three shots in his direction. Before leaving the scene, the defendant told Chief Craig that if he ever reported this incident, the defendant would “take care” of both Craig and Craig’s wife. Later that evening a State trooper observed the Kelley vehicle and forced it off the road. The defendant attempted to flee, but was apprehended.
The first issue is whether there was sufficient evidence before the jury to convict the defendant of hindering the apprehension of his brother. The defendant argues that the jury could not conclude that he was operating the vehicle because no direct evidence was presented that he drove the vehicle from the scene of the assault.
A fact, however, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of the truth of the fact sought to be proved. State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972). It is well established that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant the finding by a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973). The law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred.
The evidence here indicates that the defendant was driving the vehicle when stopped by Chief Craig, that the defendant went to the driver’s side of the car upon leaving the scene of the assault, and that he was driving the vehicle later that evening when he was apprehended by the State trooper. We conclude, therefore, that the jury could properly draw the inference that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle when he left the scene of the assault. See State v. Taylor, 118 N.H. 855, 395 A.2d 1239 (1978).
The defendant next argues that it was error for the jury to consider evidence of the defendant’s subsequent operation of the automobile in Antrim because the defendant was indicted for hindering the apprehension of Ernest Kelley “by driving him from the scene of the theft,” an event which, if it occurred at all, took place in Bennington. The defendant asserts that consideration of the Antrim incident should not be allowed because it was not raised in the indictment, thus denying him an opportunity to prepare an adequate defense. The evidence of driving in Antrim after the incident, like the evidence of his driving before the incident, is simply circumstantial evidence which coupled with the fact that he went to the driver’s side of the car supplies sufficient evidence for a finding that he drove the car from the scene in Bennington.
*17The defendant argues that even if the jury found that he was operating the vehicle, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an element of the offense, namely, his intent to commit the crime charged. The defendant contends that rather than intending to hinder the apprehension of his brother, he was fleeing to prevent his own apprehension.
RSA 642:3, which defines the offense of hindering apprehension, was drafted from the Model Penal Code, § 242.3. Under that provision, the State must prove that the defendant’s purpose was to hinder apprehension, prosecution or conviction. MODEL PENAL CODE, § 242.3 (Tent. Draft No. 9, at 196-97 (1959)). This need not, however, be the defendant’s sole intent. In the Comments to § 208.32 of Tentative Draft No. 9, the drafters of the Code recognized, for example, that a person may give personal relief (in the form of food or money), not with the intent of impeding law enforcement, but rather with the motive of sustaining the fugitive. Significantly the draftsmen declared, “[w]e prefer to recognize that motivations may be mixed, and to permit conviction where the obstructive purpose was present.” Id. at 197-98.
It is likely that the defendant wanted to flee from the scene of his assault upon Chief Craig. It is also reasonable that he did not want to see his brother apprehended, and thus intended to transport his brother from the scene as well. We held that because the statute allows such a mixture of motivations, and because the jury could reasonably find from the evidence presented that an obstructive purpose was present here, the conviction was proper.
The second issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the defendant’s prior criminal convictions were admissible to impeach him if he chose to testify in his own behalf. Following well-settled law in this State, the trial justice denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his three-year-old burglary convictions. See State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 400 A.2d 480 (1979); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1025 (1968); State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 123 A.2d 745 (1956).
The defendant argues that in determining the admissibility of a defendant’s prior criminal convictions to impeach his credibility, the court must draw a distinction between pleas of guilty and pleas of not guilty which resulted in verdicts of guilty. The defendant reasons that adjudications of guilt after denial of guilt may properly be used for impeachment because they are indicative of a defendant’s lack of veracity, whereas convictions based on admitted guilt reveal a willingness to tell the truth. Consequently, convictions based on guilty pleas should not be used for impeachment purposes. The defendant *18asserts, therefore, that because he entered pleas of guilty to the charges of burglary in 1975, and in so doing did not lie to a court or to a jury, his record of prior convictions should not be admitted for impeachment purposes.
We find no merit in a distinction that would have this court close its eyes to the reality that many defendants who know they have committed crimes plead guilty simply in exchange for a less severe penalty arranged by plea bargaining. It is not necessarily a matter of truthfulness; it is often a matter of negotiating for a lesser sentence. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).
If the defendant here had elected to testify, his credibility, like that of any other witness, could have been impeached by evidence of prior criminal convictions. State v. Lavallee supra; State v. Cote supra. He was confronted with a choice whether to testify and subject himself to impeachment or to withhold his testimony and allow his version to remain untold. He chose the latter course.
The defendant asserts that the trial court’s ruling effectively “chilled” his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. The defendant acknowledges that admission of a prior criminal conviction for impeachment is sanctioned by RSA 516:33 and, in the past, has consistently withstood constitutional attack. State v. Lavallee supra; State v. Cote supra. The defendant, however, would have this court overturn this rule on the ground that the admission of prior convictions solely for impeachment purposes constitutes a denial of the defendant’s right to due process of law as guaranteed by part 1, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. See State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 492 P.2d 657 (1971). But see Lowell v. State, 574 P.2d 1281 (Alaska 1978); Burrell v. State, 399 A.2d 1354, 1366-67 (Md. App. 1979); Coats v. State, 589 P.2d 689, 697 (Okla. App. 1979).
The defendant argues that the use of prior convictions for impeachment constitutes an impermissible burden upon his right to testify in his own behalf. This claim is analogous to that rejected in Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-56 (1958):
[The defendant] has the choice, after weighing the advantage of the privilege, against self-incrimination against the advantage of putting forward his version of facts and his reliability as a witness, not to testify at all. He cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice but, if he elects to testify, an immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute. It would make the Fifth *19Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure, but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.
Id. Similarly, it is not inconsistent with a defendant’s right to testify that the prosecution is allowed to impeach the defendant with a statement obtained from him in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971); cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1979). Although defendant in this situation must often choose between two unpleasant alternatives, such a dilemma is not thought to violate due process. See, e.g., State v. Ruzicka, 89 Wash. 2d 217, 233-34, 570 P.2d 1208, 1216 (1977); cf. Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976).
The object of a trial is not solely to surround an accused with legal safeguards but also to discover the truth. What a person is often determines whether he should be believed. When a defendant voluntarily testifies in a criminal case, he asks the jury to accept his word. No sufficient reason appears why the jury should not be informed what sort of person is asking them to take his word. In transactions of everyday life this is probably the first thing that they would wish to know____Lack of trustworthiness may be evinced by His abiding and repeated contempt for laws which he is legally and morally bound to obey... though the violations are not concerned solely with crimes involving “dishonesty and false statement.”
State v. Cote, 108 N.H. at 296, 235 A.2d at 115.
A rule barring the use of convictions for crimes not involving truth-telling would grant the defendant an unfair advantage. He would be able to testify knowing that although he had been convicted of several crimes, the jury would be left with the impression that the defendant had led a life free from crime. This unfairness is intensified when prior convictions of prosecution witnesses are used to affect their credibility. The fact that the defendant in this case has committed two burglaries certainly bears on his honesty.
RSA 516:33 does not limit the use of prior convictions to those involving infamous crimes. The purpose of that statute is to remove the testimonial disqualification of a felon while at the same time making it clear that the prosecution would not be prevented from using evidence of his conviction for impeachment purposes. State v. Archer, 54 N.H. 465 (1874). There is nothing which indicates that RSA 516:33 was intended to limit the kind of prior convictions which could be so used.
*20We are satisfied that properly instructed, the jury will not use the prior convictions for an improper purpose. The proper exercise of discretion by the trial court will bar the use of prior convictions that would cause undue prejudice. See State v. Mann, 112 N.H. 412, 297 A.2d 664 (1972).
We reaffirm our prior cases and hold that the trial judge in this case did not abuse his discretion in ruling that if the defendant chose to testify, the State could introduce his three-year-old burglary convictions.

Exceptions overruled; appeal dismissed.

DOUGLAS, J., dissented; the others concurred.