State of New Hampshire v. Myles Webster, 104 A.3d 203

Webster was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, armed robbery, reckless conduct, and resisting arrest.
Key eyewitnesses Doherty, Edwards, and Martin observed the shooter during and after the March 21, 2012 incident in Manchester; Edwards and Martin were within about 20–60 feet and could clearly see the shooter’s face.
Police released Webster’s booking photograph to the media around 4:44 a.m. on March 22, 2012, after the shooting and before arraignment.
Webster moved to suppress the out-of-court identifications as unnecessarily suggestive and to preclude in-court identifications; he also challenged media-influenced eyewitness identifications.
The trial court held two suppression hearings, concluding the identifications were not improperly compelled and applying Biggers to certain out-of-court identifications; it denied suppression and, later, denied the change-of-venue motion.
On appeal, the court addressed (i) whether the out-of-court identifications were unnecessarily suggestive and admissible, (ii) whether Biggers applied to in-court identifications, and (iii) the propriety of the venue decision and voir-dire procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were out-of-court identifications unnecessarily suggestive and tainted by state action?	State contends Biggers not triggered; booking photo release not state action.	Webster argues the release and publicity created a suggestive procedure.	Out-of-court identifications were admissible; no state-action Biggers analysis required.
Should Biggers factors apply to in-court identifications by witnesses who hadn't identified previously?	State relies on King to limit Biggers for in-court IDs.	Webster argues Biggers should apply to all identifications.	King controls; Biggers not required for in-court identifications in this context.
Was the motion for change of venue and related voir-dire/peremptory-challenge rulings correct?	State contends venue denial preserved fair trial; voir-dire procedures were adequate.	Webster asserts pervasive publicity deprived him of a fair trial; more voir-dire/peremptories needed.	No manifest error; venue ruling affirmed; publicity did not compel change of venue.

Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (Supreme Court 2012) (precludes prescreening reliability when not due to improper state action)
Biggers v. Tennessee, 409 U.S. 188 (S. Ct. 1972) (factors for evaluating eyewitness reliability)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (N.H. 1983) (clarifies standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Addison, 160 N.H. 792 (N.H. 2010) (presumption of prejudice; venue and publicity considerations)
State v. King, 156 N.H. 371 (N.H. 2007) (Biggers analysis not required for in-court identifications)
State v. Gribble, 165 N.H. 1 (N.H. 2013) (pretrial publicity and venue considerations in determining prejudice)