State of New Hampshire v. John J. Corcoran
2016-0201
N.H.Jul 27, 2017Background
- Defendant John J. Corcoran was charged (July 29, 2015) with conduct after an accident under RSA 264:25, I — alleged to have damaged another’s vehicle and failed to stop/provide contact information.
- At arraignment (Aug. 19, 2015) the State reduced the charge from a class B misdemeanor to a violation as part of a plea bargain; Corcoran pleaded nolo contendere (the court described benefits of a nolo plea).
- During colloquy the prosecutor confirmed there had been damage; the court explained that a nolo plea accepts a finding of guilt while preserving the defendant’s ability to contest liability/amounts in future civil claims; defendant said he understood and had no questions.
- In Jan. 2016 Corcoran moved to vacate the conviction, arguing his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because he did not understand that an essential element was an accident causing damage to another’s property.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the colloquy and discussion demonstrated the defendant’s understanding; the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Corcoran) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | The record shows the court discussed damage and the consequences of a nolo plea, so the plea was knowing and voluntary | Plea was unknowing because an essential element — an accident causing damage to another’s property — was not explained to him | Affirmed: colloquy and discussion established defendant understood the element and plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether the court’s colloquy was legally inadequate under Boykin | The colloquy was sufficient to show the defendant understood the nature and consequences of the plea | The court failed to ask whether he understood and waived constitutional rights, rendering the record inadequate | Rejected: even if the record lacked formal Boykin statements, collateral attack requires more than mere insufficiency of record; no relief warranted |
| Burden allocation on collateral attack | If record shows trial court inquiry, defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence his plea was unknowing/involuntary | Defendant contends he met initial burden (self‑represented, unaware of element) | Court: defendant met initial burden but failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that plea was involuntary or unknowing |
| Applicability of full constitutional plea protections to a violation-level offense | State urged that violations are noncriminal and lack the same consequences | Defendant invoked State and Federal due process protections for pleas | Court assumed protections apply for analysis but found, on the merits, plea met constitutional standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary and knowing)
- State v. Davies, 164 N.H. 71 (N.H. 2012) (defendant must understand every essential element of offense before pleading)
- State v. Ortiz, 163 N.H. 506 (N.H. 2012) (standards for knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea; burden allocation on collateral attack)
- Richard v. MacAskill, 129 N.H. 405 (N.H. 1987) (Boykin requirements and adequacy of record)
- State v. Arsenault, 153 N.H. 413 (N.H. 2006) (defendant meets initial burden by alleging lack of understanding of elements)
- State v. Zankowski, 140 N.H. 294 (N.H. 1995) (inadequate Boykin colloquy on collateral attack is not alone dispositive)