State of New Hampshire v. Justin L. Roy, 167 N.H. 276

In December 2011, Roy shared a mobile home with Heather Downs and her three children; Roy was not the father or guardian of the children.
Child 2 suffered severe non-accidental injuries while in Roy's shed, leading to hospitalizations and surgeries; doctors testified injuries were not accidental.
The State charged Roy with multiple counts including kidnapping, assault, and criminal restraint related to child 2, and assault on all three children.
Roy moved to suppress cell phone evidence; trial court denied. He also moved in limine to exclude/allow certain texts and other evidence; these motions were denied.
During trial, concerns were raised about a sealed motion to continue in Downs’s case; the court addressed a Brady claim alleging delayed disclosure.
The jury convicted Roy on several counts; he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the kidnapping charges, leading to post-trial motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the cell phone search warrant return timely?	Roy argues RSA 595-A:7 requires strict seven-day returns with no extensions; late return invalid.	Roy contends extension invalid; suppression should follow.	Technical violation of RSA 595-A:7, but no suppression required.
Should the Downs text messages be excluded under Rule 403 or 404(b)?	Prosecutor argues messages show state of mind and are probative; 403/404(b) admissible.	Messages are unfairly prejudicial and improper under 403/404(b).	Messages admitted; not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; relevant to intent/state of mind.
Was the Brady violation claim meritless to dismiss the case?	Non-disclosure of a sealed motion prejudiced defense and required dismissal.	Non-disclosure impeded defense; dismissal appropriate.	No substantial prejudice; no dismissal required.
Did the court abuse discretion by limiting cross-examination about Downs’s alleged abuse?	Cross-examination should be broad to rebut Downs’s credibility.	Evidence is improper propensity evidence under 404(b).	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded as 404(b) propensity evidence; due process claim rejected.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict on the two kidnapping charges?	Text messages, confinement in shed, and timing support purpose to terrorize and concealment.	Evidence relies on speculation; alternate culprit possible (Downs).	Yes, sufficient evidence; reasonable jurors could convict.

State v. Licks, 154 N.H. 491 (N.H. 2006) (standard for review of suppression rulings; factual findings reviewed for support, legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Saide, 114 N.H. 735 (N.H. 1974) (noncompliance with technical search-warrant provisions generally not suppressive without broader violation)
State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346 (N.H. 1984) (technical violations of RSA 595-A:7 do not require suppression)
State v. Huffman, 154 N.H. 678 (N.H. 2007) (reiterates non-suppression for certain RSA 595-A:7 violations)
State v. Sands, 123 N.H. 570 (N.H. 1983) (emphasizes limitations on suppression for technical violations)
State v. Gilson, 116 N.H. 230 (N.H. 1976) (prior holdings on suppression and evidence admissibility)
State v. Belonga, 163 N.H. 343 (N.H. 2012) (test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence: relevance, proof of act, and balancing prejudice)
Pepin, 156 N.H. 269 (N.H. 2007) (intent in Rule 404(b) analysis requires closely connected intent between acts)
State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350 (N.H. 2013) (circumstantial evidence may support guilty verdict; standard for sufficiency)
State v. Spaulding, 147 N.H. 583 (N.H. 2002) (cross-examination limits balancing right to defense)
State v. Stowe, 162 N.H. 464 (N.H. 2011) (use of cross-examination to impeach credibility in Brady context)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (N.H. 1983) (compulsory process and right to present favorable proofs; limits)