State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller
166 N.H. 65
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Mueller was convicted on three counts of felony wiretapping for recording conversations without consent of all parties.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the mental state required was “purposely.”
- The statute requires a wilfully intercepts communications; Fischer v. Hooper clarified wilfully is not simply knowingly.
- Mueller did not object to the jury instruction at trial; the issue was raised as plain error on appeal.
- The State concedes error and plain error, but argues the error did not affect the outcome.
- The court ultimately held the improper instruction was prejudicial and reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury instruction error plain? | Mueller argues instruction misstated mens rea as purposely. | State concedes error but asserts no plain error as to effect on outcome. | Yes; error was plain. |
| Did the error affect substantial rights and likely change the outcome? | Mueller contends lack of proper wilfully mens rea undermines proof. | State contends evidence supported willfulness through conduct and context. | Yes; the error likely affected verdicts. |
| Should the convictions be reversed under the fourth prong of plain error? | Mueller argues miscarriages of justice would result without reversal. | State argues no miscarriage given some supportive evidence and public policy concerns. | Yes; fourth prong satisfied; convictions reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer v. Hooper, 143 N.H. 585 (1999) (wilfully means intentional or reckless disregard for lawfulness)
- Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585 (2011) (plain error when misdefined mens rea depends on evidence strength)
- Moussa, 164 N.H. 108 (2012) (plain error standard requires 4-prong analysis)
- Guay, 162 N.H. 375 (2011) (plain is clear or obvious; substantial rights analysis)
- O’Leary, 153 N.H. 710 (2006) (instruction quality; evaluate instructions as jury would)
- Russell, 159 N.H. 475 (2009) (weighs for fourth-prong discretion when guilt is overwhelming)
- United States v. Paul, 37 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1994) (illustrates plain error when misinstruction risked conviction)
- Citron v. Citron, 722 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1983) (wilfully interpreted as intentional or reckless disregard)