State of New Hampshire v. William Gaudet, 166 N.H. 390

Background

Defendant William Gaudet (father) was convicted after a jury trial of felonious sexual assault, two counts of misdemeanor sexual assault, attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, and attempted incest for assaults against his daughter occurring when she was about 12 and 16. The victim reported the incidents to police in 2010; charges followed.
The victim had previously filed a civil suit in Maine alleging a broader course of physical and sexual abuse, and a family acquaintance (Raymond) had encouraged her to sue after learning the defendant had money from an inheritance/sale. The Maine suit remained pending during the criminal trial.
Defense counsel, in opening, emphasized the existence of the Maine civil suit and suggested the victim had a financial motive to fabricate; the trial court warned defense counsel not to imply the New Hampshire charges were the sole basis of the Maine suit.
The trial court permitted the State to elicit limited testimony from the victim that she sued because of “all the physical abuse” and that abuse occurred in Maine and New Hampshire, but excluded detailed inquiry into specific uncharged Maine incidents as beyond Rule 403 and Rule 404(b) limits. The court twice instructed the jury limiting the civil-suit evidence to credibility assessment only and not for truth of uncharged acts.
Defense moved for mistrial after (1) a prosecutor’s stray opening remark about prior verbal/physical abuse (court struck remark and denied mistrial), and (2) two closing-argument references by the prosecutor to the victim’s fear based on physical abuse and to the civil suit allegations (court struck improper portions, gave curative instructions, and denied mistrial).
During deliberations a juror (No. 10) wrote that he had concluded defendant was guilty based on extraneous speculation about the victim’s sister; the juror denied sharing these views, was excused, the court individually questioned remaining jurors, excused one more juror, and allowed deliberations to continue. Defendant appealed, arguing errors on opening-the-door, mistrial denials, and juror inquiry sufficiency.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Gaudet's Argument	Held
Whether defense opening "opened the door" to testimony about uncharged abuse alleged in the Maine civil suit	Defense’s opening created a misleading impression that the Maine suit was motivated solely by the New Hampshire charges; State could rebut by eliciting testimony about broader abuse to show motive and credibility	Defense said its opening was truthful and not misleading; introduction of uncharged acts prejudiced defendant	Court assumed arguendo any error but affirmed: limiting instructions minimized prejudice and admission was within discretion; no reversible error
Whether prosecutor's opening remark about prior verbal/physical abuse warranted a mistrial	Statement was not shown to be in bad faith and was stricken; curative instruction cured prejudice	Argued remark was improper and required mistrial	Court denied mistrial: no bad faith and curative instruction sufficient
Whether prosecutor’s closing statements referring to victim’s fear/physical abuse and civil-suit allegations required mistrial	Comments were permissible responses to defense closing that attacked victim’s motives and credibility; any improper references were cured by the court’s prompt instructions	Argued prosecutor improperly referenced excluded uncharged acts and repeated error warranted mistrial	Court denied mistrials: prosecutor’s rebuttal was permissible; where improper, court struck remarks and gave thorough cure instructions that removed prejudice
Whether the trial court’s post-note inquiry into juror No. 10’s note was insufficient to detect prejudice to the panel	Court properly excused juror, individually voir dired remaining jurors, excused one more juror, and reasonably concluded no actual prejudice; defendant failed to preserve broader challenge	Argued the voir dire was too limited to determine whether other jurors had been influenced by juror No. 10’s extraneous speculation about the sister	Court rejected claim: absent preserved objection or proof of actual prejudice, scope of inquiry was within discretion and not an abuse

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583 (2009) (explaining "opening the door" doctrines: curative admissibility and specific contradiction)
State v. Blackstock, 147 N.H. 791 (2002) (trial-court credibility determinations on misleading impressions are often debatable)
State v. Costello, 159 N.H. 113 (2009) (limiting instructions reduce risk of unfair prejudice from evidence of other acts)
State v. Bisbee, 165 N.H. 61 (2013) (standard for overturning trial court's mistrial/remedial decisions)
State v. Dayutis, 127 N.H. 101 (1985) (reversible error for prosecutor’s opening requires bad faith, statement unsupported by evidence, and prejudice)
State v. Hearns, 151 N.H. 226 (2004) (curative instructions can cure prosecutorial missteps)
State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691 (2005) (prosecutor may permissibly respond to defense argument attacking witness credibility)
State v. Bathalon, 146 N.H. 485 (2001) (defendant's right to impartial jury; jurors disqualified should be removed)
State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265 (2002) (trial court should remove offending juror and generally conduct individual voir dire when juror prematurely concludes guilt)