State v. Fennell, 85-450
| Decision Date | 29 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-450,85-450 |
| Citation | 128 N.H. 383,513 A.2d 363 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Edward FENNELL, Jr. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Stephen E. Merrill, Atty. Gen. (Bradford W. Kuster, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for State.
Joanne S. Green, Asst. Appellate Defender, Concord, for defendant.
The defendant appeals from a conviction on four counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. RSA 632-A:2, XI (Supp.1983). The defendant challenges (1) the Trial Court's (Murphy, J.) failure to grant a mistrial because of alleged discussions between jurors outside of the presence of the remainder of the jury panel; and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence concerning one of the counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. The defendant was sentenced to terms of 7 1/2 to 15 years on each of three counts, to run concurrently, and one term of 3 1/2 to 7 years to run consecutively. We find no error and affirm.
The defendant was charged with four assaults on three separate occasions involving three victims. Two of the victims were eleven years old, and one victim was seven years old, at the time of the assaults. The three girls and the fifteen-year-old brother of one of the girls testified about various sexual assaults perpetrated by the defendant. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he appealed.
We turn first to the issue of whether the court properly refused to grant a mistrial. The jury began deliberations on the afternoon of April 10, 1985. When a verdict was not reached by 5:15 p.m., the jury was released to go home. The next day, the defendant moved for a mistrial based on the assertion that a member of the defendants's family had overheard two jurors talking as they were leaving the building the previous evening. The alleged conversation involved one juror who stated to the other: "... when we were children, we didn't do ...," and then said, "[h]ere comes the family." The trial judge did not conduct a hearing to determine the way in which this conversation was overheard, nor was any testimony offered concerning the conversation. The motion was denied.
The trial court has broad discretion to resolve questions of possible prejudice on the part of jurors at any time during the course of a trial. See State v. Pugliese, 122 N.H. 1141, 1147, 455 A.2d 1018, 1022 (1982). The trial court had repeatedly warned the jurors against discussing the case outside of the jury deliberation room. We conclude that the conversation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McAdams
...of why sufficiency of the evidence questions should be permitted to be raised on direct appeal for the first time. In State v. Fennell, 128 N.H. 383, 513 A.2d 363 (1986), rev'd in part per curiam, 133 N.H. 402, 578 A.2d 329 (1990) ("Fennell I "), the defendant appealed to this court, challe......
-
State v. Dushame
...the defendant's right to a jury of twelve individuals were more than sufficient to rebut such a presumption. See State v. Fennell, 128 N.H. 383, 384, 513 A.2d 363, 364 (1986) (trial court has broad discretion to resolve issues of possible juror prejudice at any time during course of trial);......
-
State v. Menard, 88-434
...standard applied in the federal courts. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(d). In making his argument, the defendant relies upon State v. Fennell, 128 N.H. 383, 513 A.2d 363 (1986), rev'd in part, 132 N.H. ----, 578 A.2d 329 (1990), asserting in his brief that this court "clearly indicated that it would c......
-
State v. Fennell
...no error in denying the mistrial and that the defendant had not properly preserved the insufficiency issue for review. State v. Fennell, 128 N.H. 383, 513 A.2d 363 (1986). In July 1988, the defendant filed a pro se motion to vacate his convictions and obtain a new trial, based on allegation......