State of New Hampshire v. Paul A. Costella
166 N.H. 705
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Defendant Paul A. Costella made explicitly anti‑Jewish statements and threats at a Tilton Wal‑Mart employee (Sylvestre) and manager (Allard) after an oil‑change, referencing a "Jew killing gun" and saying he would "kill the Jew b*h".
- He was charged with two counts of criminal threatening and one count of disorderly conduct; the criminal threatening counts were prosecuted with a hate‑crime sentencing enhancement under RSA 651:6, I(f).
- At trial the State gave pretrial notice it would seek the hate‑crime enhancement; the jury convicted on all counts including the enhanced criminal threatening counts.
- On appeal Costella argued (1) insufficiency of evidence to support the hate‑crime enhancement because the State did not prove the victims actually were Jewish, and (2) erroneous exclusion of his daughter’s testimony that he was not motivated by hostility toward Judaism.
- The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the enhancement and excluded the daughter’s proffered testimony for lack of a specific offer of proof; the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RSA 651:6 I(f) requires proof the victim actually belongs to the protected class | State: statute punishes bias‑motivated crimes and requires proof defendant was substantially motivated by hostility toward a protected class (need not prove victim's actual status) | Costella: statute requires proof of the victim’s actual religion; absent such proof enhancement cannot apply | Held: Statute ambiguous but construed to require proof only of defendant’s hostility toward the victim’s perceived protected status; actual membership need not be proved |
| Admissibility of daughter’s testimony about defendant’s motive/character | Costella: daughter would show he lacked motive/hostility toward Judaism (character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1)) | State: proffer insufficient to show a pertinent trait or the substance of the testimony; relevance objection sustained | Held: Trial court did not err — defense failed to make a specific contemporaneous offer of proof, so exclusion was not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146 (N.H. 2013) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- State v. Gagne, 165 N.H. 363 (N.H. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Lathrop, 164 N.H. 468 (N.H. 2012) (ambiguity and use of legislative history)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1993) (rationale for enhanced penalties for bias‑motivated crimes)
- Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (U.S. 2014) (avoiding constructions that create unworkable or absurd procedures)
- United States v. Adams, 271 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2001) (requirements for an adequate offer of proof)