State v. Craig, 2013–229
| Decision Date | 12 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–229,2013–229 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Brian CRAIG |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Foster, attorney general (Natch Greyes, fellow, on the brief and orally), for the State.
Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.
Following a jury trial in Superior Court (Delker, J.), the defendant, Brian Craig, was convicted on one count of criminal threatening, RSA 631:4 (Supp.2014) ; one count of witness tampering, RSA 641:5 (2007); and one count of stalking, RSA 633:3–a (Supp.2014). The convictions were based on a series of messages that he posted on his Facebook profile page in April 2012 that were directed to the victim. At the conclusion of the State's case, the defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss all three charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the witness tampering and stalking charges for insufficient evidence. He does not challenge his conviction for criminal threatening. We affirm.
The jury could have found the following facts. In late 2011, the defendant met the victim at a restaurant in Exeter where she worked as a bartender and waitress. The defendant initially came to the victim's workplace with his brother or with friends. The victim interacted with the defendant only at work, and, according to her, their relationship consisted only of "very casual, very simple" customer-server communications. In time, the defendant began coming to the restaurant by himself, and the victim noticed that he stared at her. On one occasion, he came in alone, and told the victim that he came in just to see her.
In April 2012, the defendant mailed a letter to the victim at her workplace. The letter addressed the victim by name, and began: Alarmed by the letter, the victim contacted the Exeter Police Department. Shortly thereafter, the victim received a second letter at work, in which the defendant stated that he "had to get a few things off of [his] chest" about their relationship before he could "say good bye properly."
On April 22, Officer Chadwick of the Exeter Police Department served the defendant with a stalking warning letter. Chadwick explained to the defendant that the victim had complained about his behavior, and that the letter was a warning from the Exeter Police Department that "future stalking behavior" would result in prosecution for stalking under RSA chapter 633:3–a. Chadwick confirmed that the defendant understood the warning letter and the consequences of violating it. On the same day, the Exeter police served the defendant with a no-trespass notice from the victim's employer, informing him that he was forbidden from entering the victim's workplace, and that if he did so, he could be arrested for criminal trespass. See RSA 635:2 (Supp.2014).
The next day, the victim received a third letter at her workplace. The defendant wrote, "[I can] never give you another shot again, since you chose not to repair the damage you caused in having me banned from [the restaurant] for having spoken of it on the internet." Although the victim had been told by the police that the defendant had mailed another letter prior to being served with the stalking warning letter, she was nevertheless distressed when she received it. The victim was so troubled that, later that day, she filed a petition for a temporary restraining order.
On April 24, the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) issued a temporary restraining order against the defendant under RSA chapter 173–B, which was served on the defendant the same day. See RSA ch. 173–B (2014) (). The restraining order required the "[s]toppage of the mail letters and no contact whatsoever, phone, email, et cetera." The order also notified the defendant that a final hearing on the restraining order was scheduled for May 4, 2012.
Subsequent to service of the restraining order, the defendant continued to post statements directed to the victim on his public Facebook page. On April 27, the defendant posted:
The next day, April 28, the defendant posted:
Despite acknowledging that, "I know you want me to slow down a bit on here," the defendant continued to post statements directed to the victim on his Facebook page:
Later on April 28, the defendant posted four more messages, instructing the victim as to what he wanted her to do and say at the hearing scheduled for Friday, May 4, and threatening her if she did not comply:
Several days after the court's entry of the restraining order against the defendant, the victim, for the first time, decided to read the defendant's Facebook page. She did so because the defendant's first letter referenced his posts about her on Facebook, and because her mother, who had read the posts, warned the victim of "the extent and the severity" of the language in them.
Although the victim had a Facebook page at the time, she was not a "Facebook friend" of the defendant.1 However, because the defendant's page was public, the victim found the defendant's Facebook page simply by entering his name into the Facebook search tool. The defendant's posts were contained in his Facebook "Notes," which the victim could read by opening the "Notes" section of the defendant's Facebook profile page.2
The victim spent "about three hours" reading the defendant's posts about her. She was "appalled" and "scared" by the language he used in reference to her, and by reading her name in one of his posts. Consequently, she contacted the Exeter Police Department and reported the content of the Facebook page. In response, Officer Chadwick logged onto Facebook, found the defendant's Facebook page, and read the multiple posts directed to the victim, many of which were written after the defendant had been served with the restraining order. On April 28, Chadwick went to the defendant's home and confronted him with printed copies of the Facebook posts. The defendant admitted that he wrote them, but said that he was "expressing his feelings." Chadwick then arrested the defendant.
A grand jury indicted the defendant for witness tampering, RSA 641:5 ; stalking, RSA 633:3–a, I(c); and criminal threatening, RSA 631:4. A jury trial was held on December 11, 2012. At the conclusion of the State's case, the defendant moved to dismiss each charge. The court denied the motion. The jury convicted the defendant on all three charges. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the witness tampering and stalking charges. He contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of the two charges.
Facebook is a widely-used social media website, available for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buhl
.... . . social media like Facebook is an ever increasing way people speak to each other in the twenty-first century"); State v. Craig, 167 N.H. 361, 369, 112 A.3d 559 (2015) ("Facebook and other social media sites are becoming the dominant mode of communicating directly with others, exceeding......
-
State v. Buhl
...of ... social media like Facebook is an ever increasing way people speak to each other in the twenty-first century”); State v. Craig, 167 N.H. 361, 369, 112 A.3d 559 (2015) (“Facebook and other social media sites are becoming the dominant mode of communicating directly with others, exceedin......
-
Green v. Commonwealth
...that the defendant contacted the protected person in a way proscribed by the statute through a social media post); State v. Craig, 167 N.H. 361, 112 A.3d 559, 566 (2015) ("By posting messages addressing the victim on his public Facebook page, and directing the victim's attention to his page......
-
Purifoy v. Mafa
...communicate them to [the victim] or to other Facebook users, who then might convey the messages to [the victim]"); State v. Craig , 167 N.H. 361, 112 A.3d 559, 566 (2015) (affirming conviction for stalking based on a series of messages posted on the defendant's own Facebook profile that wer......