State of New Hampshire v. David C. Smith
2016-0564
N.H.Jun 9, 2017Background
- Defendant David C. Smith was observed in a ladder tree stand near apples, corn, and a hanging wildlife feeder; he admitted placing the bait and hunting deer with a bow out of season.
- Conservation officer issued a summons the next day charging Smith with taking deer by the aid and use of bait out of season under RSA 207:3-d, I and N.H. Admin. Rule Fis. 307.03.
- Statutory framework: RSA 207:3-d, I authorizes the fish & game director to adopt rules on opening/closing the baiting season; RSA 206:19-a makes violations of fish & game laws a violation-level offense; RSA 207:1 contains definitional provisions including “take or taking.”
- Administrative rule Fis. 307.03 prohibits deer taken by the aid and use of bait outside season; the definition of “take or taking” in RSA 207:1, XXVII includes attempted taking and acts like hunting and using devices to take wildlife.
- Trial court (Circuit Court, Bamberger, J.) convicted Smith; Smith appealed raising five main challenges (statutory authority, scope of “baiting,” rule requiring an actual taking, vagueness, and wrongful arrest/directed verdict).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Director’s authority to create violation-level offense for baiting | State: Read RSA 207:3-d with RSA 206:19-a to permit rules whose violation is a violation-level offense | Smith: 207:3-d authorizes only rulemaking about season timing, not creation of offenses | Held: Director may adopt rules on baiting season; violations can be prosecuted as violations under RSA 206:19-a |
| Whether "baiting" refers to bait season or hunting-with-bait season | State: Statutory definitions and scheme show baiting means use of bait for hunting (affects when taking is allowed) | Smith: 207:3-d governs baiting season only, not hunting with bait | Held: "Baiting" as used refers to use of bait for hunting; rule applies to hunting with bait out of season |
| Whether Fis. 307.03 requires actual taking/killing of a deer | State: "Take or taking" includes attempted taking and hunting; rule covers use of bait even without a kill | Smith: Rule’s phrase “deer taken by the aid and use of bait” requires an actual taking/killing | Held: Definition of "take or taking" includes attempts and hunting; Smith violated Fis. 307.03 despite no kill |
| Vagueness of statute and rule | State: Construed in statutory context, purpose is clear—prohibit hunting with bait during closed season; reasonable hunters will understand prohibitions | Smith: Broad definition of "taking" makes prohibited acts unclear and enables arbitrary enforcement | Held: Statute and rule are not unconstitutionally vague; reasonable person would understand prohibition |
| Wrongful arrest / sufficiency of evidence (directed verdict) | State: Arrest authority allows warrantless arrest on view but officer issued summons instead; evidence of hunting with bait supports conviction | Smith: He was wrongfully arrested; alternatively, statute does not prohibit taking with bait before open season so directed verdict should be granted | Held: No unlawful arrest (summons issued lawfully); directed verdict claim inadequately developed and otherwise fails given prior holdings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thiel, 160 N.H. 462 (N.H. 2010) (statutory interpretation requires reading provisions in context of overall statutory scheme)
- Appeal of Boyle, 169 N.H. 371 (N.H. 2016) (administrative rules are interpreted using same principles as statutes and read in statutory context)
- State v. McCormack, 110 N.H. 482 (N.H. 1970) (upholding regulatory prohibition as neither vague nor arbitrary in fish and game context)
- State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47 (N.H. 2003) (appellate review limited to issues fully briefed by parties)
Affirmed.