State of New Hampshire v. Jamie Locke
166 N.H. 344
| N.H. | 2014Background
- In Nov. 2009 the defendant and others threw an intoxicated victim into the Merrimack River causing injuries; multiple indictments followed.
- A Jan. 2011 grand jury indicted Locke for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder (and accomplice counts), and first-degree assault; one accomplice count was dismissed pretrial.
- At the first trial the jury acquitted Locke of conspiracy, attempted murder, and first-degree assault but convicted on an accomplice-to-attempted-murder count; that conviction was later set aside because the indictment was deficient.
- After the first trial concluded, the State obtained a separate indictment charging second-degree assault arising from the same incident and tried Locke on that charge.
- Locke moved to dismiss the second-degree assault indictment as barred by double jeopardy or by failure to join related charges; the trial court denied relief and the jury convicted.
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed, adopting a common-law compulsory-joinder rule (based on Model Penal Code §1.07(2)) and holding the second-degree assault should have been joined with the first trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrying Locke for second-degree assault after acquittal on first-degree assault violated double jeopardy | State: charges are distinct; prosecution allowed to pursue different offenses | Locke: second-degree assault is the same offense as first-degree assault for double jeopardy purposes | Court did not decide double jeopardy on the merits; resolved case on compulsory-joinder grounds and reversed conviction |
| Whether the State was required to join all charges arising from the same criminal episode in the first trial | State: has broad charging discretion and no misconduct alleged | Locke: absent good reason, related charges must be joined to prevent harassment and multiple prosecutions | Court adopted a common-law compulsory-joinder rule barring separate trials for offenses based on the same conduct when known to the prosecutor at the start of the first trial; applied it here and reversed |
| Scope and source of the new rule (procedural vs. constitutional) | State: (implicit) procedural change should be through rulemaking or statute | Locke: court can adopt rule to protect against harassment | Court adopted rule as part of common law (supervisory power), citing Model Penal Code §1.07(2); noted rule need not be enacted by court rule or legislature first |
| Retroactivity / application to pending cases | State: (implicit) possibly prospective only | Locke: should apply to her case on direct review | Court held the new compulsory-joinder rule applies to all cases pending on direct review and to the defendant here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glenn, 160 N.H. 480 (discussed double jeopardy "same evidence" test under NH Constitution)
- Heald v. Perrin, 123 N.H. 468 (established NH test focusing on whether proof of elements requires different evidence)
- State v. Gosselin, 117 N.H. 115 (declined to adopt same-episode double jeopardy test but contemplated joinder rule via court rule)
- State v. Heinz, 119 N.H. 717 (noted that multiple offenses arising from same acts may warrant joinder to avoid repeated trials)
- State v. Gregory, 333 A.2d 257 (N.J. 1975) (adopted compulsory-joinder rule for offenses arising from same conduct; relied on Model Penal Code approach)
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (discussed harms of multiple prosecutions and double jeopardy principles)
- State v. Tierney, 150 N.H. 339 (addressed prospective application of joinder rules; cited for applying new rule to cases on direct review)