State of New Hampshire v. Colleen Carr
167 N.H. 264
| N.H. | 2015Background
- Colleen Carr owned a multi‑use building in Milford and told her boyfriend, Conrad Kelleher, and a tenant she wanted the building burned to collect insurance proceeds (~$403,000 estimated).
- Carr solicited the tenant to vacate temporarily, offered money, and told the tenant not to tell anyone; the tenant refused and alerted others.
- Kelleher, the tenant, and a business occupant separately reported Carr’s statements to police; police recorded multiple calls between Carr and Kelleher.
- In recorded calls Carr instructed Kelleher to tell police the tenant was often intoxicated/on Klonopin, that the tenant had threatened the fire, and to say he knew nothing; Carr left a voicemail repeating similar accusations.
- Carr was charged with felony criminal solicitation (soliciting an accomplice to insurance fraud) and two counts of felony witness tampering (inducing false statements and withholding information); she was convicted by a jury and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of criminal solicitation indictment | Indictment need only allege elements of solicitation and identify the solicited crime | Indictment inadequate under NH Const. art. 15 because it did not allege elements or method of solicited offense (insurance fraud/accomplice) | Affirmed: Indictment constitutional — it recited solicitation elements and identified crime solicited; no need to plead elements of inchoate solicited offense (Ericson; Munoz) |
| Jury instruction on solicitation | Given instructions properly stated law on inchoate solicitation | Requested additional instructions requiring proof of elements of insurance fraud/accomplice | Affirmed: Court rightly declined; State need not prove elements of the solicited completed offense |
| Jury instruction on entrapment for witness tampering | Not applicable (State opposed) | Entitled to entrapment instruction because Kelleher (working with police) lied and induced her | Affirmed: No "some evidence" of inducement by law enforcement or lack of predisposition; mere opportunity/lying insufficient for entrapment (Mendola) |
| Double jeopardy re: two witness tampering convictions | Two separate calls and different statutory theories (inform falsely vs. withhold) | Both counts arose from same conduct (telling Kelleher "tell them you don't know anything") so multiple punishments violate state double jeopardy | Affirmed: No double jeopardy — charges arose from separate telephone transactions and distinct statutory variants (part I, art. 16; Blockburger/transactional test) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Evidence (recorded calls, voicemail, witness testimony, insurance value) supports convictions | Evidence unreliable (tenant memory, inconsistent Kelleher testimony); State failed to prove elements | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational jury could find solicitation purpose (>$1,500) and witness tampering beyond reasonable doubt; credibility for jury (Saunders; Hodgdon) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379 (2009) (indictment must allege elements and facts to notify defendant)
- State v. Munoz, 157 N.H. 143 (2008) (attempt/solicitation are inchoate; indictment need not allege elements of uncompleted substantive offense)
- State v. Kaplan, 128 N.H. 562 (1986) (solicitation complete upon request; need not show completion)
- State v. Mendola, 160 N.H. 550 (2010) (entrapment requires some evidence of inducement by law enforcement and lack of predisposition)
- State v. Fischer, 165 N.H. 706 (2013) (double jeopardy: offenses are different if not arising from same act or transaction)
- State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342 (2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence — view evidence in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Hodgdon, 143 N.H. 399 (1999) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑offense test and multiplicity principles)