Edward White v. State of New Hampshire, 195 A.3d 108

Edward White was convicted in Massachusetts in 1985 of two counts of indecent assault and battery against an eight‑year‑old; he served three years and was paroled and later completed sex‑offender treatment (claimed).
As a New Hampshire resident, White became subject to lifetime sex‑offender registration in 1994 and was classified Tier III; RSA 651‑B:6, V provides a post‑registry hearing process for pre‑registry convictions.
White petitioned to be relieved of registration under RSA 651‑B:6, V and submitted a psychologist’s risk assessment (Dr. Carol Ball) including MCMI‑III and the Abel Assessment.
Ball’s report found some personality features, some interest in prepubescent females on the Abel, a low (12%) Cognitive Distortion score, and ultimately concluded White was a minimal risk and should be removed from the registry.
The trial court found conflicts and weaknesses in Ball’s testimony (e.g., inconsistent statements on the Abel’s reliability, reliance on self‑reported health issues, and remaining sexual interest in prepubescent females) and denied the petition, finding White failed to prove he no longer posed a risk.
White appealed, arguing the court improperly discounted uncontroverted expert testimony, misapplied the statute, relied on acquitted conduct, and mischaracterized the Cognitive Distortion score.

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by discounting Ball’s uncontroverted expert testimony	Court should have accepted Ball’s conclusions that White is minimal risk	Court: trier of fact may accept or reject expert testimony and resolve conflicts	Court did not err; reasonable person could resolve conflicts as trial court did
Whether court misunderstood or misapplied RSA 651‑B:6, V	Court lacked understanding of statutory standard for relief	Court correctly quoted and applied RSA 651‑B:6, V	No error; court applied statute properly
Whether court improperly relied on acquitted conduct or unavailable records	Mention of acquitted conduct and lack of parole records showed improper consideration	State: court merely noted acquittal and absence of records without relying on them to deny relief	Court did not rely on acquitted conduct or penalize petitioner for missing records
Whether court misstated Ball’s testimony about the Cognitive Distortion score	Court mischaracterized Ball by saying she didn’t state whether the score was problematic	State: Ball did not testify to ranges that define "problematic" and court considered score in context with Abel results	No reversible error; court accurately noted lack of testimony on ranges and considered score with other evidence

Doe v. State of N.H., 167 N.H. 382 (2015) (constitutional limits on applying registry to pre‑registry convictions; hearing opportunity required)
O’Malley v. Little, 170 N.H. 272 (2017) (appellate standard: uphold factual findings unless unsupported or legally erroneous)
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (2001) (standard for unsustainable exercise of discretion)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Town of Hudson, 145 N.H. 598 (2000) (trier of fact may accept or reject portions of expert testimony)
Roy v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 88 (1982) (trier of fact may disbelieve testimony even if uncontradicted)
Brooks v. Allen, 168 N.H. 707 (2016) (recognition that expert testimony is not automatically dispositive)
In re Deven O., 165 N.H. 685 (2013) (trial court may rely on observations of witnesses)
In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698 (2008) (interpretation of trial court orders)
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (1993) (appellate courts may decline to discuss unpersuasive arguments)