State v. Prisby

Decision Date31 October 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-323,87-323
Citation131 N.H. 57,550 A.2d 89
PartiesThe STATE of New Hampshire v. Robert PRISBY.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION

SOUTER, Justice.

After a jury trial in the Superior Court (Gray, J.), the defendant was convicted of conspiring to commit theft from an Exeter school, RSA 629:3, and as an accomplice to the theft, RSA 626:8. The evidence indicated that he was the school's custodian who committed the offenses by enlisting others to break into the building to steal the school's computers, and by briefing the burglars on the building's layout and the appropriate window for entry. There was uncontradicted testimony that, after the defendant had given the burglars a screwdriver to pry open the window, he drove away from their meeting place in an Exeter parking lot and they proceeded to burglarize the school.

During deliberations, the jurors asked three questions, in answering the second of which the trial judge is claimed to have invaded the jury's province to find and evaluate the facts. The following colloquy is on the record:

"[The Court]: The second question is, 'Where was Prisby at the time of the crime?' I guess this is the main reason why I brought you in. If you mean on the crime of theft of the computers I will ask you to look at the--Madam Forelady, is that what you mean when you say the crime? You mean the theft of the computers are the crimes with which he is charged?

[Juror]: At that time, yes.

[The Court]: At the time the computers were stolen?

[Juror]: Yes.

[The Court]: It makes no difference because he is not accused of stealing computers, that is not the charge in this case. So his presence or his whereabouts at the time of the offense of the theft ... is immaterial, has no bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence on the offenses with which he is charged."

The defendant concedes that proof of his presence at the school was unnecessary to satisfy the elements of either conspiracy or accomplice liability. But he argues that his whereabouts at the time of the burglary was a subject of evidentiary fact for the jury to consider as having some relevance under each charge, so that an absence of evidence on this point could likewise be considered relevant. Thus he claims that branding his whereabouts as "immaterial" impermissibly removed the matter from the jury's consideration. See N.H.R.Ev. 401 (relevance tied to tendency to make existence of fact of consequence more or less probable).

The instruction must be judged as a reasonable juror would probably have understood it, see State v. Jones, 125 N.H. 490, 494, 484 A.2d 1070, 1073 (1984), and the defendant's position must be evaluated in the context of the whole charge and in light of all the evidence in the case, State v. Bundy, 130 N.H. 382, 539 A.2d 713 (1988). If, then, the defendant could have argued consistently with the evidence that his whereabouts at the time of the burglary was so uncertain as to cast doubt on the testimony offered to prove conspiracy and accomplice conduct, he would have a plausible basis to claim now that a reasonable juror could have understood the judge to be instructing that a relevant factual consideration should be ignored. In such circumstances, a juror could have understood the judge to be saying that the failure of the evidence to indicate the defendant's location at the moment of the burglary was not to be weighed in deciding whether the State had carried the burden of proof, and the instruction would have been error. On the record before us, however, the defendant could not plausibly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Dedrick
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 1 May 1992
    ...language requested by the defendant, must be evaluated in the context of the entire charge and all of the evidence. State v. Prisby, 131 N.H. 57, 59, 550 A.2d 89, 90 (1988). We consider the instructions in their entirety to determine whether the trial court adequately stated the relevant la......
  • State v. Plante
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 24 July 1991
    ...their entirety, as a reasonable juror would have understood them, and in light of all the evidence in the case. See State v. Prisby, 131 N.H. 57, 59, 550 A.2d 89, 90 (1988). "A requested charge on a party's theory of defense must be given if such theory is supported by some evidence," State......
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 23 August 1989
    ...of the jury by diverting jurors "from any reasonable line of factual analysis they might otherwise have pursued." State v. Prisby, 131 N.H. 57, 59, 550 A.2d 89, 90 (1988). The court did not, as the defendant asserts, give the jury a step-by-step method by which to determine the defendant's ......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 7 November 1996
    ...jurors' province by diverting them from [a] reasonable line of factual analysis they might otherwise have pursued." State v. Prisby, 131 N.H. 57, 59, 550 A.2d 89, 90 (1988). We The defendant argued at trial that the complainant was pursuing the criminal case in order to strengthen her civil......
  • 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