State v. Letarte

Decision Date09 December 2016
Docket NumberCoos No. 2014–0791
Citation169 N.H. 455,151 A.3d 533
Parties The STATE of New Hampshire v. Jamie F. LETARTE
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Joseph A. Foster, attorney general(Sean P. Gill, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

DALIANIS, C.J.

The defendant, Jamie F. Letarte, appeals his conviction by a jury on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, seeRSA 632–A:2, I(j)(2)(2016), and one count of felony indecent exposure, seeRSA 645:1, II(a)(Supp. 2014)(amended 2015).On appeal, he argues that the Superior Court(Bornstein, J.) erred when it precluded him from introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach the victim's testimony on a collateral matter during her cross-examination by defense counsel, seeN.H. R. Ev. 608(b), and when it denied his motion to vacate the verdict and schedule a new trial.We affirm.

I.Background

The jury could have found the following facts.The defendant is the biological father of the victim.The charges stem from an incident that occurred in February 2012.The victim, who was then approximately 13 years old, was having a friend sleep at her house.The victim and her friend became intoxicated on alcohol that the defendant had provided them.When the victim woke up in the early morning, she felt the defendant's fingers inside her vagina and, when she told him to stop, he masturbated in her presence.

The defendant was tried in October 2014.During his opening statement, defense counsel told the jury that the victim had accused the defendant of sexually assaulting her "so she could deflect attention from her own misconduct that day."Defense counsel said that "this is ... not an unusual move for [the victim]" because she had "threatened to do the same thing to another family member."For ease of reference, we refer to the family member as "the witness."Defense counsel explained that the witness would tell the jury that when the victim and her mother were staying at his house, he"noticed that [the victim] appeared to be intoxicated" and "that his liquor cabinet had been broken into."According to defense counsel, the witness would also testify that, when he told her that she and her mother had to leave, to avoid being removed from the home, the victim said to her mother, "[A]ll I have to do is say that [the witness] attempted to rape me."

The State objected, arguing that the witness's proposed testimony was inadmissible.Defense counsel countered that the proposed testimony was probative of the victim's credibility.Defense counsel explained that he sought not only to cross-examine the victim about the alleged incident involving the witness, but also to introduce the witness's testimony to impeach her if she denied it.

The trial court ruled that the proposed cross-examination was permissible and stated, that "at least at this point[,] ... reference to such evidence in opening arguments is permissible and it would be anticipated that the extrinsic evidence would be admissible as well."The trial court explained that, if the parties"want to have a further hearing out of the presence of the jury tomorrow morning ... [where the witness] testifies ..., we can certainly do that."

Defense counsel then continued his opening statement, repeating that accusing a family member of sexual assault "is not an unusual move" for the victim because she had told her mother that "all"she had to do "is call the police and tell them that [the witness] attempted to rape [her] and he will be the one out of the house."Defense counsel asserted that "[t]here's a pattern[;][i]f [the victim] doesn't like the situation, she'll go to extreme lengths to rid herself of people, including [making] ... false allegations of sexual assault, false allegations to either ... the police or investigators, and that's what's going on here."

When the victim testified on direct examination, she was not asked, and did not testify, about the witness incident or about any other alleged incident not involving the defendant.On cross-examination, however, in response to questioning by defense counsel, the victim denied threatening to tell the police that the witness had sexually assaulted her.She also denied telling the witness that she"would tell the police that he raped" her.

The court then heard additional argument from the parties regarding whether the witness should be allowed to testify so as to impeach the victim's testimony.The State objected to the witness's proposed testimony on the ground that its admission violated New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(b) because it constituted extrinsic evidence offered to impeach a witness on a collateral matter.SeeN.H. R. Ev. 608(b)(providing, in pertinent part, that "[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence");seealsoState v. Hopkins, 136 N.H. 272, 276, 616 A.2d 916(1992)(explaining the collateral issue rule).The State also observed that the witness incident occurred more than a year after the incident involving the defendant.Defense counsel countered that the witness's testimony fell within an exception to Rule 608(b)'s bar to extrinsic evidence, which we adopted in State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 718–19, 709 A.2d 768(1998), and which applies to allegedly false allegations of sexual assault.

The trial court preliminarily concluded that the Ellsworth exception was the proper lens through which to view the proposed testimony.Thus, over the State's continued objection, the trial court conducted a hearing, outside of the jury's presence, to determine whether the witness's testimony met that exception.The witness testified that he and the victim had fought because he thought that she had broken into his liquor cabinet and stolen his liquor.He testified that he told the victim that he"didn't want her drinking in [his] home and she got very upset about it."When the witness went into the kitchen, he saw the victim and her mother talking and heard the victim tell her mother"that all she needed to do was to call the police and tell them that [he] had sexually molested her and they would take [him] out of the house."

Defense counsel then argued that the witness's testimony was admissible pursuant to the Ellsworth exception to Rule 608(b)'s bar to extrinsic evidence because he had submitted "clear proof" that, had the victim actually made the accusation she threatened to make, it "would've been false."Alternatively, defense counsel argued that the testimony was admissible under State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 165–67, 652 A.2d 671(1994), to show that the victim "was lying on the stand."The trial court ruled that the witness's testimony did "not fit within"the Ellsworth exception and was also inadmissible under Vandebogart.As a result, the witness was not called for the defense.Defense counsel objected to the ruling, explaining that counsel had "relied on ... the Court's representation ... that this was an Ellsworth case" in crafting his opening statement, cross-examining witnesses, and presenting the defense.

After the trial had concluded, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the verdict and for a new trial based upon what he termed the court's "last minute determination that the Ellsworth exception did not apply" to the witness's testimony.In the motion, defense counsel reiterated that he had relied upon the trial court's "statements that the evidence regarding ... [the witness] would be admissible pursuant to Ellsworth," and, because of that reliance, had "highlighted and stressed this evidence to the jury in opening statements" and in his cross-examination of the victim.Defense counsel argued that the trial court's "[i]nconsistent application" of its prior ruling that the Ellsworth exception applied to the witness's testimony "worked a reversible prejudice to [the] defense" and deprived the defendant of his right "not only to due process but also to a fair trial" pursuant to Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's motion.The court found that because defense counsel summarized the witness's proposed testimony to the jury in his opening statement before the State had objected and before the court, ultimately, had ruled that the witness's testimony was inadmissible, the defendant could not claim to have been prejudiced.This appeal followed.

II.Analysis

The defendant argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) precluded him from introducing the witness's testimony to impeach the victim's testimony on cross-examination; and (2) denied his motion to vacate and for a new trial.We address each argument in turn.

A. Ellsworth Exception

The defendant first asserts that the witness's testimony was admissible under the Ellsworth exception to Rule 608(b)'s bar to extrinsic evidence.We review a trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.State v. Towle, 167 N.H. 315, 320, 111 A.3d 679(2015)."For the defendant to prevail under this standard, he must demonstrate that the trial court's decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case."Id.In applying our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard of review, we determine only "whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made."State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175(2001)."Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently," but is only "to determine whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court on the basis of the evidence before it."Benoit v. Cerasaro, 169...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • State v. Plantamuro
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • September 7, 2018
    ...only whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made. State v. Letarte, 169 N.H. 455, 461, 151 A.3d 533 (2016). Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently, but is only to determine whether a reasonable person ......
  • State v. Colbath
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • January 8, 2019
    ...court's evidentiary rulings. We review such challenges under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Letarte, 169 N.H. 455, 461, 151 A.3d 533 (2016). "For the defendant to prevail under this standard, he must demonstrate that the trial court's decision was clearly un......
  • State v. Rouleau
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • January 19, 2024
    ...only whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made. State v. Letarte, 169 N.H. 455, 461, 151 A.3d 533 (2016). [3, 4] [¶14] The proper test to apply in deciding the admissibility of "similar acts" or "other acts" evidence depends upon......
  • State v. Pierce
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2024
    ...only whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made. State v. Letarte, 169 N.H. 455, 461, 151 A.3d 533 (2016). [¶26] Here, neither the State nor defense counsel had seen the interior of the trailer prior to trial. According to defense......