State v. Mussey

Decision Date24 February 2006
Docket NumberNo. 2004-784.,2004-784.
Citation153 N.H. 272,893 A.2d 701
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court
Parties The STATE of New Hampshire v. William MUSSEY.

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Ted Lothstein, assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

DUGGAN, J.

The defendant, William Mussey, was convicted of second-degree assault. RSA 631:2, I(d) (1996). The defendant argues that the Trial Court (McGuire, J.) erred by overruling his objection to a statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument regarding the motivation of the police officer witnesses to testify truthfully. We affirm.

The record reflects the following facts. In the early morning of January 12, 2004, the victim's mother took her three-year old son to Concord Hospital. Emergency room physician Dr. Michael Lynch initially treated the victim for severe injuries to his genital region. His penis and scrotum were swollen and bruised. The skin of his penis was excoriated and the shape of his penis was distorted, curling off to the side as a result of loss of skin. Due to the severity of the injury, Dr. Lynch called a pediatrician and a urologist to assist.

When asked how her son sustained the injury, she told the physicians that the victim, who was not circumcised, had inserted his thumb into his foreskin and stretched the skin to look more like his two older brothers, who were circumcised. The physicians did not believe that the injuries were self-inflicted and suspected child abuse.

The division for children, youth and families (DCYF) and the Concord Police Department initiated an investigation. Concord Police Officer Julie Curtin and a DCYF caseworker arrived at Concord Hospital and learned that the victim's mother had gone home. Concord Police Detectives Sean Dougherty and John Thomas went to speak with her at her home.

She told the detectives that she had "exclusive sole supervision of the children" and that "no one else in the world" had watched them. When asked about her son's injury, she attributed it to his stretching the foreskin of his penis. She also said that, within the past month, the victim's two older brothers had bitten and kicked the victim's penis. During this conversation, the detectives saw the victim's two older brothers come downstairs and asked the victim's mother if anyone was watching the children. She answered that she had called the defendant early that morning to come watch her children. At the detectives' request, she then took the detectives upstairs to meet the defendant. He introduced himself, stating that he assumed they were there because of the victim's condition. The detectives asked him to spell his name, which he spelled "M-u-z-z-e-y."

The defendant told the detectives that he had seen the victim's injury the night before and that the victim's mother had told him about seeing the victim pulling his own penis the day before.

Several hours after leaving the apartment, the detectives learned that the defendant had misspelled his name and that he had been picked up on outstanding warrants. They went to the Concord police station to interview the defendant. Detectives Dougherty and Thomas conducted the interview while Curtin observed from a separate room on closed circuit television. At the time of the interview, neither Dougherty nor Thomas had seen the victim's injury or spoken with the treating physicians.

According to Dougherty's testimony, the defendant told the detectives that he and the victim's mother had become closer following the death of the boys' father in September 2003 and that he lived at her apartment most of the time. The defendant said that the children had "issues" with toilet training. The detectives told the defendant that the victim's injury could not have been self-inflicted or caused by another child. They urged him to tell them any information he had and told him that there will be consequences for whomever caused the victim's injuries. The defendant began to cry and admitted that he had spanked the children for bedwetting "on five or six occasions." He then asked the detectives, "[W]hat kind of consequences[?]" The detectives explained that the consequences would depend on the seriousness of the injury and the person's involvement. The defendant then stated, "[M]aybe I did do it." While crying, he stated, "I didn't mean to hurt the little guy, I just lost my cool." The defendant then said, "I wanted to tell you guys today when you were at the apartment, but [the victim's mother] was there and I wanted to tell her last night when she discovered it, but I didn't want her to hate me and I didn't want to go to jail."

Dougherty testified that the defendant then gave a detailed confession: On Sunday, January 11, 2004, at around 10:00 a.m., one or more of the boys had wet or soiled their beds and he and the victim's mother had put them in showers. The defendant showered the victim's two older brothers and then took the victim, who had not been in the shower, into the bedroom to put a pull-up diaper on him. The victim began to urinate onto the floor and the defendant. At that point, he "reacted and reached up and he grabbed [the victim] by the penis, spun him around and spanked his bottom and ... he maintained a hold on [the victim's] penis and the scrotum in his hands and ... he pulled him towards the bathroom so that he could finish peeing in the toilet." He held the victim's genitals for ten to fifteen seconds, and his mood at the time was "irate."

Dougherty asked the defendant if he was holding the victim "hard enough to break an egg," and the defendant said "[O]h, yeah." When asked if it was hard enough to break a walnut, the defendant said he "didn't know about that." Thomas asked him to demonstrate how hard he had squeezed the victim by squeezing Thomas' fingers; he did so and Thomas said, "[T]hat's pretty hard." The defendant stated that the victim had been crying throughout the assault, but stopped when the defendant was dressing him and hugged the defendant, apologizing for urinating. Dougherty testified that the defendant appeared remorseful and apologetic.

Officer Curtin took handwritten notes as she watched the interview from another room. At trial, Curtin reviewed her notes, testifying that she had written down the defendant's statements in chronological order and had "tried to be verbatim." Curtin's notes were consistent with Dougherty's testimony.

Detective Thomas' testimony regarding the defendant's confession corroborated Dougherty's testimony. Thomas also testified that, after the interview, he took the defendant downstairs to book him on assault charges. The defendant asked Thomas if he could call his mother and Thomas permitted the call, taking notes of the defendant's side of the conversation. Thomas testified that the defendant told his mother, "I'm in real trouble, I grabbed one of [the victim's mother's] sons, ... and I hurt him."

At trial, the victim's mother testified that on the morning of January 11, the victim and his older brothers had soiled their pants. The defendant offered to give the children a shower. The victim's mother then went downstairs. While downstairs, she heard the victim crying. She went upstairs five to ten minutes later and saw the victim wrapped in a towel. The defendant told her that the victim had fallen in the shower. She testified that she first saw the victim's injuries that same day around 8:00 p.m. She showed the injury to the defendant at around 1:00 a.m. and he told her to take the victim to the hospital.

The defendant testified at trial that he had been away from the apartment for several hours on January 10. When the defendant awoke around 10:00 a.m. the next day, he first noticed the victim's injury. The defendant "was considerably shocked" when he saw that the victim's genitals were swollen and red. He testified that when he had bent down on one knee to examine the injury, the victim began to urinate on him. He testified, "I put my right hand up ... open handed ... to keep the stream of urine from going up my arm and on the side of my neck." The defendant then yelled at the victim, asking, "[W]hat are you doing[?]" The victim went into the bathroom on his own and finished urinating. The defendant advised the victim's mother to take her son to the hospital.

The defendant also testified that, during the interview at the police station, Thomas told him that "this situation is front page news, and ... we can keep this out of the papers ... if you talk to us." He said it was clear that they wanted him to confess. He said that Thomas asked him how hard he would have to squeeze an egg to break it, and that he showed him by squeezing Thomas' fingers. He testified that he "got emotional" and started to cry because he felt like a suspect and was scared. He testified that he told the detectives, "maybe I did hurt [the victim]," because he did not know whether he had hurt him when he put his hand up to stop the victim's urine from hitting him. On cross-examination, the defendant denied saying that he had spun the victim around and spanked his bottom while holding onto his genitals or had walked him to the bathroom while continuing to hold onto them. The defendant said that Curtin, Dougherty and Thomas were "liars."

The three treating doctors testified that the injury could not have been self-inflicted or inflicted by other children. Each doctor testified that the injury could have been caused by a grown man angrily grabbing the victim's penis and scrotum and spinning the child around to spank him and leading the child to another room while holding onto his genitals. Dr. Lynch, the emergency room physician, testified that the victim would not have been able to urinate without significant discomfort.

During closing argument, defense counsel said that the police officers involved in this case "don't like to follow...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Cosme
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2008
    ...during jury orientation was questionable, record did not show that defendant suffered actual prejudice); see also State v. Mussey, 153 N.H. 272, 280, 893 A.2d 701 (2006) (whether impermissible remark by prosecutor justifies reversal of verdict depends in part upon whether it likely could ha......
  • State v. Drown
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2018
    ...A.3d 652 (2017). We conclude, therefore, that the defendant's argument is preserved and turn to its merits.Citing State v. Mussey, 153 N.H. 272, 277–78, 893 A.2d 701 (2006), the defendant contends that an argument that asks the jury to find a victim credible because she found it embarrassin......
  • State v. Cosme
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2008
    ...during jury orientation was questionable, record did not show that defendant suffered actual prejudice); see also State v. Mussey, 153 N.H. 272, 280, 893 A.2d 701 (2006) (whether impermissible remark by prosecutor justifies reversal of verdict depends in part upon whether it likely could ha......
  • State v. Bisbee
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 14, 2013
    ...license to fashion argument with the need to ensure that a defendant's rights are not compromised in the process." State v. Mussey, 153 N.H. 272, 280, 893 A.2d 701 (2006) (quotation omitted). "[A] prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the facts proven and has great latitude in clos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT