State of New Hampshire v. Dale E. Holloway, Jr., 2024-0073

Background

After a church wedding shooting in Pelham, Holloway was convicted of attempted murder, felon in possession of a dangerous weapon, multiple assaults, and simple assault. 1
He represented himself at trial, asserted insanity, and the trial was bifurcated to address guilt, felony status, and insanity. 2
The court denied his venue and competency motions, excluded his testimony about prior convictions, and later sentenced him in absentia. 3
On appeal, Holloway challenged venue, competency, the exclusion of testimony, the felony jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence, in absentia sentencing, and the extended sentence. 4
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed all convictions and sentences. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue without hearing 6	Holloway said pervasive publicity required a hearing and venue change.	State said the publicity was not prejudicial or saturated enough.	No error; no manifest prejudice and no hearing required. 7
Failure to order competency evaluation 8	Holloway claimed his mental health and conduct created doubt about competency.	State said the record showed rational participation and no bona fide doubt.	No error; record did not require a competency hearing. 9
Exclusion of testimony about prior convictions 10	Holloway argued the facts of his Massachusetts convictions supported his affirmative defense.	State said only the existence of the convictions mattered and the defense was not preserved.	Issue unpreserved; no plain error. 11
No jury instruction defining felony 12	Holloway claimed the jury had to be instructed on felony under New Hampshire law.	State said the classification question was legal, and in any event not plain error.	No plain error. 13
In absentia sentencing and extended term 14	Holloway argued he did not waive presence and the extended sentence was unlawful.	State said he refused transport, waived presence, and failed to preserve the sentencing challenge.	Both challenges rejected; sentencing in absentia and extended term affirmed. 15

Key Cases Cited

State v. Batista-Salva, 171 N.H. 818 (N.H. 2019) (preservation and plain-error standards; appellant bears burden to show issues were raised below 16)
State v. Webster, 166 N.H. 783 (N.H. 2014) (change of venue, pretrial publicity, and inherent prejudice framework 17)
State v. Addison, 165 N.H. 381 (N.H. 2013) (extensive publicity alone does not establish presumptive prejudice 18)
State v. Tsopas, 166 N.H. 528 (N.H. 2014) (trial court has discretion whether a hearing is necessary absent statute 19)
State v. Smith, 177 N.H. 159 (N.H. 2025) (competency requires rational consultation and factual and rational understanding 20)
State v. Kincaid, 158 N.H. 90 (N.H. 2008) (court must hold a competency hearing when bona fide doubt arises 21)
Hart v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 171 N.H. 709 (N.H. 2019) (self-representation can give the court more opportunity to assess competency 22)
State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710 (N.H. 1993) (record may fail to raise bona fide doubt about competency 23)
State v. Young, 159 N.H. 332 (N.H. 2009) (elements of felon-in-possession offense under RSA 159:3 24)
State v. Hodgdon, 143 N.H. 399 (N.H. 1999) (contemporaneous and specific objection required to preserve an issue 25)
State v. Gay, 169 N.H. 232 (N.H. 2016) (reconsideration may be required when the trial court misunderstands an evidentiary argument 26)
State v. Leroux, 175 N.H. 204 (N.H. 2022) (plain-error prejudice requires confidence the verdict would have been the same absent the error 27)
State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585 (N.H. 2011) (an error is plain only when the governing law is clearly settled to the contrary 28)
State v. Hodges, 176 N.H. 751 (N.H. 2024) (plain-error review applies to unpreserved sufficiency claims 29)
State v. Davis, 139 N.H. 185 (N.H. 1994) (a defendant may waive the right to be present by voluntary absence 30)
State v. Lister, 119 N.H. 713 (N.H. 1979) (voluntary absence and waiver of presence are factual questions for the trial court 31)