New Hampshire Supreme Court October 13, 2016 Oral Argument Case Summary

Transcription

1 New Hampshire Supreme Court October 13, 2016 Oral Argument Case Summary CASE #2 State of New Hampshire v. Remi Gross-Santos ( ) Attorney David M. Rothstein, Deputy Director New Hampshire Public Defender, for the defendant, Remi Gross-Santos. Attorney Susan P. McGinnis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New Hampshire. QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APPEAL The defendant appeals his convictions for Second Degree Assault and Transportation of Alcohol by a Minor. The court must decide: (1) Did the trial judge make a mistake when he allowed a witness to testify about a marijuana grinder being in the back seat of the defendant s car? (2) Did the trial judge make a mistake when he found that the police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for Driving Under the Influence? (3) Are the defendant s arguments on appeal preserved? In other words, did he properly present his arguments at trial, thus allowing him to raise the arguments on appeal to the Supreme Court? LAWS TO CONSIDER United States Constitution No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1. New Hampshire Criminal Code Chapter 631:2 Second Degree Assault A person is guilty of a class B felony if he or she recklessly causes serious bodily injury to another. RSA 631:2, I. 1

2 Recklessness means that the defendant was aware of the risk of serious bodily injury resulting from his actions, consciously disregarded the risk, and had knowledge of circumstances that made disregarding the risk a "gross deviation" from law-abiding conduct. State v. Belleville, 166 N.H. 58, 62 (2014). Serious Bodily Injury means any harm to the body which causes severe, permanent or protracted loss of or impairment to the health or of the function of any part of the body. RSA 625:11. Case Law On appeal the court will not overturn a trial court s determination of probable cause unless, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the decision is [against] the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Ducharme, 167 N.H. 606, 611 (2015) (emphasis added). Probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. State v. Andrews, 125 N.H. 158, 165 (1984). In assessing whether an officer had probable cause, the appellate court does not view each item of evidence separately, but rather as a whole, and from the arresting officer's point of view at the time the arrest was made. State v. Ducharme, 167 N.H. 606, 611 (2015). (emphasis added). The trial court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence, and [this court] will not upset its ruling absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. State v. Towle, 167 N.H. 315, 320 (2015) (emphasis added). New Hampshire Rules of Evidence Rule 401. Definition of Relevant Evidence "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 2

3 Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible All relevant evidence is admissible, except as limited by constitutional requirements or as otherwise provided by statute or by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Rule 404 (b). Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. FACTS OF THE CASE The defendant in this case is Remi Gross-Santos. At approximately 7:15a.m., on June 12, 2014, the day before his graduation from Portsmouth High School, the defendant was driving a Volvo station wagon to an early morning graduation rehearsal after attending an all-night party in Ipswich, Massachusetts, when he fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the double-yellow line, and struck two women who were walking in the pedestrian lane on the opposite side of the road. The women sustained serious injuries including multiple bone fractures. One woman suffered neurological impairment, and the other suffered a stroke. Prior to his trial, the defendant sought to suppress evidence and statements he made to police after being arrested for DUI, arguing that he was arrested without probable cause. In other words, he argued that the police lacked sufficient information to justify their belief that he was intoxicated, that the arrest was thus unlawful, and that, as a result, the State should not be allowed to introduce any evidence at trial that the police obtained as a result of the unlawful arrest. 3

4 In deciding this issue, the trial judge acknowledged that this was a very close case. However, given the defendant s under age status, and his behavior after the crash, the trial judge decided that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant had a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of over.02, the legal limit for underage drivers. At trial, the State sought to present evidence that the defendant had a marijuana grinder in the back seat of his car not to prove that he was driving while impaired -- the State could not prove impairment in this case -- but for purposes of evaluating the credibility of the defendant s account of what occurred the evening prior to the crash. The State claimed that the defendant s account was different from Tyler Dewsnap s, the defendant s friend. Specifically, the defendant omitted that he and Dewsnap smoked marijuana at 9:00 p.m. the evening prior to the crash. The State argued that the grinder would bolster Dewsnap s credibility and call into question the defendant s. The trial judge agreed with the State and decided to admit the grinder for this limited purpose. Gross-Santos now appeals his convictions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. LEGAL ARGUMENTS Remi Gross-Santos, through his lawyer, asks the New Hampshire Supreme Court to overturn his convictions for two counts of Second Degree Assault and one count of Transportation of Alcohol by a Minor. First, the defendant argues that the trial judge made a mistake by allowing the State to present testimony that the defendant had a marijuana grinder in the back seat of his car. According to the defendant, this evidence had no relevance, and increased the risk that the jury might convict him not because he committed the crimes, but because it believed he was a marijuana user. The State argues that the grinder evidence bolstered Dewsnap s testimony that he and the defendant used marijuana the evening before the accident a detail the defendant omitted. The grinder, the State argues, lent credibility to Dewsnap s story. Thus, the State argues that the grinder served a proper purpose, and did not substantially increase the risk that he might be convicted for an improper reason. 4

5 In response, the defendant argues that the grinder had no legitimate probative value and because it suggested that he was a habitual marijuana user, was impermissibly prejudicial. The defendant argues that the grinder was not probative as to his credibility because he never challenged Dewsnap s testimony about smoking marijuana the evening prior to the crash; moreover, Dewsnap never testified that he and the defendant used a grinder to smoke marijuana that evening. Thus, any probative value of the grinder was substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice, specifically, that the grinder might cause the jury to view the defendant as a reckless or non-law abiding citizen. Second, the defendant argues that the trial judge made a mistake when he decided that there was probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The State argues that the arresting officer s knowledge, experience, and training in the detection of impaired drivers, and his knowledge of the defendant s activities prior to the collision, could have reasonably led him to conclude that the defendant had been driving with a BAC over the legal limit for a minor. In response, the defendant argues that the trial judge made a mistake because he considered (1) inconsistent statements he made regarding his whereabouts prior to the collision and (2) a statement that he had been at an all-night party. Both statements, he argues, were not known to the officer at the time he arrested him and therefore should not have factored into the trial judge s probable cause analysis. QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO CONSIDER (1) What if there was evidence that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana before the crash? How would that affect the admissibility of the grinder? (2) How might the State s highlighting of differences in Dewsnap s and the defendant s stories help them persuade the jury? This summary was prepared by the Judicial Branch Communications Office based on legal briefs filed by the parties to the appeal. 5