State v. Whitney
Decision Date | 26 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-034,84-034 |
Citation | 125 N.H. 636,484 A.2d 1158 |
Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. Norman WHITNEY. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gregory H. Smith, Atty. Gen., Concord (Edna M. Conway, Concord, attorney, on brief), by brief for the State.
James Duggan, Appellate Defender, Concord, by brief for defendant.
The defendant, Norman Whitney, appeals his convictions on two counts of witness tampering. RSA 641:5, II. The issues presented for review are whether the Trial Judge (Contas, J.): (1) properly admitted evidence of the defendant's prior convictions, and (2) abused his discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever the two charges for trial.
In October, 1980, Priscilla Bohannon Chaffee gave a statement to the Cheshire County sheriff's department implicating the defendant in a theft of plywood in West Swanzey. In January, 1981, Paul "Renny" Davis implicated the defendant in a burglary occurring at the Central Screw Company in Keene. In the spring of 1981, the defendant pleaded guilty to eleven separate charges, including the theft and the burglary of which Chaffee and Davis had provided the sheriff's office with evidence. The defendant was sentenced to the State prison.
Following his release from prison, the defendant committed the acts giving rise to the witness tampering charges. On April 13, 1983, he pursued Chaffee's car in Keene, overtook her, and forced her off the road. He then beat on Chaffee's car and shouted threatening remarks, in Chaffee's words, "You rat, you are going to pay, you have had it ... I am going to get even...." Chaffee testified to being frightened, but escaped without physical harm.
On May 7, 1983, in Keene, the defendant and Davis engaged in a fight. Davis was hit about the head and kicked. Davis testified that the defendant was the aggressor and that the defendant's attack was in retaliation for Davis's "ratting" to the police about the Central Screw Company burglary.
Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's motion to sever the trials on the two charges and ruled that evidence of all eleven 1981 convictions was admissible in the State's case-in-chief and for impeachment.
Defendant was convicted on both charges of witness tampering and sentenced. This appeal followed. We affirm.
The State and the defendant agree that evidence of the crimes to which Chaffee and Davis would have testified was admissible as part of the State's case to show a motive for the witness tampering. The dispute concerns the admissibility of the other guilty pleas entered concurrently with the pleas on those two charges. Defendant argues that the court's failure to find specific grounds upon which the 1981 convictions were admitted is reversible error. We disagree.
Evidence of a defendant's prior convictions is not admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief to prove the character of the accused or his disposition to commit the crime in question. State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977). Prior convictions may, however, be offered to prove an element of a crime or a system of criminal activity, or to show identity, malice or motive. State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967). Admissibility of prior convictions in the prosecution's case-in-chief
State v. Barker, 117 N.H. at 546, 374 A.2d at 1180. The defendant bears the burden of requesting a hearing on the record and developing a record from which an abuse of discretion may be predicated. State v. Staples, 120 N.H. 278, 284, 415 A.2d 320, 323-24 (1980).
The State provided the defendant with a notice of intent to use his criminal record "at the case-in-chief and also for impeachment." See Super.Ct.R. 68 ( ). Defendant objected on the ground "that the use of the defendant's criminal record in the case-in-chief would be unduly prejudicial to the defendant's defense of his case." The court ruled: motion is granted. The At trial, evidence of all eleven 1981 convictions was introduced during the State's case-in-chief.
The trial court determined that the eleven convictions were relevant to the State's case-in-chief. This record warrants the court's finding that the defendant's actions were motivated by a desire for retaliation against Chaffee and Davis. Their testimony could have been found strong enough to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Roberts
...more likely the State's version of why the defendant promised Bryar cash, a car, and a Canadian address. Cf. State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 638-39, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984) (holding that evidence of prior convictions is proof of motive for witness tampering). On these facts, the trial co......
-
State v. Bassett
...136 N.H. 731, 747, 622 A.2d 1225, 1236 (1993); State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 213, 490 A.2d 1350, 1354 (1985); State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984). Motive does not mean a desire to engage in coerced sexual activity. Whittaker, 138 N.H. at 527, 642 A.2d at 938. In ......
-
State v. Johnson
...to the prejudice of [the defendant's] case.' " State v. Parker, supra, 127 N.H. at 532, 503 A.2d at 813 (quoting State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984)); State v. Allen, 128 N.H. 390, 397, 514 A.2d 1263, 1268 (1986); see State v. Hood, 127 N.H. 478, 480, 503 A.2d 78......
-
State v. Ramos
...N.H. at 154–55, 697 A.2d 930 (consolidating "closely related" sexual assaults committed against two brothers), and State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158 (1984) (joining two witness tampering charges in part because they could be proved by common evidence). Our case law thus per......