In re Alex C., 161 N.H. 231

Juvenile Alex C. appeals a trial court finding the delinquency petition true for harassment under RSA 644:4,1(b).
Facts: from 11:20 a.m. to 12:16 p.m., Alex sent twenty separate obscene instant messages to Rachel K.’s AIM account via the daughter’s login, within a 56-minute span.
AIM messages appeared as discrete entries; there was a 46-minute break with no messages, followed by more messages until 12:20 p.m.
The State alleged that the repeated communications occurred between 11:20 a.m. and 12:16 p.m. with offensively coarse language to annoy.
The trial court denied a motion to dismiss, ruling all elements of harassment were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellate review is de novo on statutory interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether twenty messages within a single AIM session are 'repeated communications' under RSA 644:4,1(b).	Alex argues a single AIM conversation cannot be a 'repeated' course of communications.	State contends instant messaging is a series of discrete messages; repeated communications occurred here.	Yes; twenty messages constitute repeated communications under the statute.

State v. Lott, 152 N.H. 436 (2005) (instant messaging defined and treated as electronic transmission)
State v. Gubitosi, 157 N.H. 720 (2008) (statutory scope of harassment statute; overbreadth and interpretation of subsection (1)(b))
State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596 (2008) (use of legislative history when statute ambiguous)
State v. Brown, 155 N.H. 590 (2007) (statutory interpretation framework; final arbiter of legislative intent)
State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511 (2009) (Model Penal Code influence on NH statutes)
State v. McKeown, 159 N.H. 434 (2009) (legislative history and interpretation of criminal statutes)
Maxwell v. State, 895 A.2d 327 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) (conceptual discussion of instant messaging and monitoring)