In re D.B., 53 A.3d 646

In May 2010, juvenile D.B. and complainant, a fellow juvenile, regularly rode the school bus together.
On May 19, the juvenile allegedly placed his hand down the complainant’s shirt and touched her breasts, then down her pants to her ankle.
The complainant told him to stop; he reportedly did not comply and later threatened retaliation if she told anyone.
A week later, the complainant reported the incident; charges included misdemeanor sexual assault and witness tampering.
The petition alleged that D.B. subjected the complainant to sexual contact without consent by overcoming her with physical force.
Trial evidence included the complainant’s testimony and a surveillance video; the court later found D.B. delinquent on the sexual assault charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence that D.B. overpowered the victim through actual physical force	D.B. argues force must be greater than that inherent in the sexual act	State contends force may be equal to or greater than the act itself and need not exceed inherent force	Insufficient evidence; reversed
Whether the act was for purposes of sexual arousal or gratification	D.B. argues the evidence fails to show such purpose	State contends evidence could support such purpose	Not reached

State v. Nickles, 144 N.H. 673 (2000) (each sexual assault variant requires its own elements; here the variant requires overcoming by force)
State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 272 (2003) (failure to prove an element of the charged variant requires acquittal)
In re Nathan L., 146 N.H. 614 (2001) (petitions analyzed as indictments; testing against variant elements)
In re Alex C., 161 N.H. 231 (2010) (statutory construction; promote justice; plain meaning approached)
State v. McDonald, 163 N.H. 115 (2011) (forcible sex offense language; avoid reading extra requirements into statute)
State v. Simpson, 133 N.H. 704 (1990) (some force beyond mere lack of consent is required for the force element)