State of New Hampshire v. Louise E. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28

On Aug. 27, 2013 the defendant, Louise Pinault, was involved in two vehicle incidents; witnesses reported a vehicle striking mailboxes then later going off the road where Pinault was found.
Police linked the two scenes by license plate and observed damaged mailboxes and tire tracks at the first scene.
Pinault was charged with DUI and with violating the “conduct after an accident” statute (RSA 264:25, I); she represented herself at a bench trial.
The trial court acquitted her of DUI but convicted her of conduct after an accident and ordered $525 restitution for mailbox damage.
Pinault moved for reconsideration arguing the complaint was insufficient and restitution improper; the trial court denied the motion and she appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pinault)	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered for property damage that occurred during the accident when conviction is for leaving the scene (conduct after an accident).	Restitution proper because the property damage is part of the factual allegations supporting the conviction and restitution presumption favors compensating victims.	Restitution improper because the mailbox damage occurred during the accident (before she left) and thus was not caused by the criminal act of leaving the scene.	Reversed restitution: restitution requires that economic loss be a direct result of the offender’s criminal conduct; damage occurred before the crime (leaving) and therefore is not a result of the crime.
Whether the complaint was constitutionally or procedurally insufficient for failing to allege the defendant was “involved in” the accident.	Complaint adequately informed defendant; any omission was not prejudicial and did not affect outcome.	Complaint defective for not explicitly alleging involvement in the accident, depriving fair notice and affecting double jeopardy/due process.	Conviction affirmed: any potential defect was forfeited and, assuming plain error, defendant failed to show prejudice—the record shows the court resolved involvement at trial and the omission did not affect the outcome.

State v. Armstrong, 151 N.H. 686 (2005) (restitution permitted where losses directly result from factual allegations supporting the conviction but court declined to define outer limits of "direct result")
State v. Gibson, 160 N.H. 445 (2010) (standards for statutory interpretation and construing criminal statutes according to fair import)
State v. Schwartz, 160 N.H. 68 (2010) (courts presume defendants responsible for victims’ losses will pay restitution)
State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585 (2011) (challenge to charging document must be raised before trial; otherwise appellate review limited to plain error)
State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65 (2014) (plain error test and requirement that defendant show the error affected the outcome)