State of New Hampshire v. Steven P. Collins, 119 A.3d 855

Victim, fourteen, met defendant in 2009 and spent nights at the Collinses’ trailer in Grafton; assaults occurred at night on a blanket outdoors; defendant instructed not to tell anyone.
AFSA charged as a pattern (Jan 1–Nov 30, 2009) and two separate FSA counts within the same period; mother reported assaults in 2010, police contacted.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the pattern AFSA charge for insufficient evidence of a 2+ month period; jury convicted on all three charges.
Sentences: AFSA 10–20 years; FSA counts 3.5–7 years each, with one FSA running concurrently with and the other consecutively to the AFSA sentence.
On appeal, Collins challenges sufficiency of pattern evidence, closing argument on prior inconsistent statement, and alleged double jeopardy from consecutive sentencing; court affirms in part and vacates in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence the pattern occurred over 2 months or more	Collins—insufficient evidence of a 2+ month period	State—pattern began in June 2009 and continued into September 2009	Sufficient evidence; rational jury could find 2+ months
Whether the closing argument regarding a prior inconsistent statement was reversible	State’s remarks were improper	Remedy not warranted; curative instruction unnecessary	Not reversible error; no prejudice given limiting instructions and cumulative evidence
Whether consecutive FSA sentence to the AFSA sentence violated double jeopardy	Fortier-type concern about simultaneous pattern and discrete acts	Double punishment for same act possible without proper instruction	Federal double jeopardy violated; vacate the consecutive FSA sentence

State v. Fortier, 146 N.H. 784 (2001) (pattern AFSA and discrete acts can be punished separately with proper instructions)
State v. Hannon, 151 N.H. 708 (2005) (pattern AFSA and discrete acts can be charged together if jury instructed to treat separately)
State v. Fischer, 143 N.H. 311 (1999) (limiting-instruction issues and prejudice standard)
State v. Silva, 158 N.H. 96 (2008) (jury instructions; assume jury follows court’s instructions)
State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237 (2011) (sufficiency review de novo; standard explained)