State v. Abraham DePaula, 166 A.3d 1085

Background

July 18, 2011: armed home invasion in Hampstead; victims J.U. and D.C. were bound; D.C. sexually assaulted; assailants stole guns. Defendant DePaula was charged with burglary, multiple theft counts, and two conspiracy counts for participating with others in planning/committing the invasion.
Prosecution theory: Menagerman and Sanchez entered the house; DePaula primarily stayed outside in a car; co-conspirators later showed stolen guns and sought buyers.
Defense: DePaula gave an alibi for July 18 (at hospital for wife's childbirth) and testified he attended a July 11 trip to Hampstead to buy a gun (he described it as buying an "illegal" gun or being unaware of any criminal purpose).
Evidentiary disputes at trial: (1) whether DePaula’s testimony opened the door to rebuttal evidence about an unrelated Manchester homicide; (2) admissibility of testimony about the physical and sexual assaults during the burglary; (3) whether cell‑tower range testimony by records custodians was lay or expert testimony.
Verdict and sentencing: jury convicted on all counts; trial court imposed sentences on both conspiracy convictions. On appeal the court affirmed most rulings but vacated one conspiracy conviction (State conceded sentencing both was plain error).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	DePaula's Argument	Held
Admission of rebuttal evidence about an unrelated Manchester homicide after DePaula testified about the July 11 trip	DePaula’s testimony implying ignorance of the trip’s criminal purpose opened the door; rebuttal evidence was necessary to impeach that implication	Testimony did not mislead; evidence of unrelated homicide was impermissible prior‑bad‑acts propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial	Court upheld admission under the specific‑contradiction/opening‑the‑door doctrine; limiting instruction cured prejudice; not an abuse of discretion (majority)
Admission of testimony regarding physical and sexual assaults during the burglary	Assault testimony was inextricably intertwined with the burglary, probative of co‑conspirator identity and witness credibility	Details were inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial; should have been excluded under Rules 401/403	Court held assaults admissible: probative for identity and to explain victims’ trauma; limiting instructions and dissimilarity of DePaula’s role mitigated unfair prejudice
Cell‑tower/range testimony by records custodians (lay vs expert)	Custodians could provide basic, non‑technical testimony about how phones attach to towers and typical ranges as lay testimony	Such testimony (maximum ranges/selection preference) required expert qualification; custodians lacked expertise	Court held custodians’ testimony admissible as lay opinion under Rule 701 given their personal knowledge/training and the basic nature of the concepts; not an abuse of discretion
Sentencing on two conspiracy convictions for what evidence showed was a single overall conspiracy	State did not contest at trial but on appeal conceded error in sentencing both	DePaula argued double jeopardy / plain error because evidence showed one conspiracy	Court vacated one conspiracy conviction (State conceded plain error)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gaudet, 166 N.H. 390 (N.H. 2014) (discusses opening the door, curative admissibility, and specific contradiction doctrines)
State v. Cannon, 146 N.H. 562 (N.H. 2001) (opening the door where witness testimony raised a new issue meriting rebuttal evidence)
State v. Carlson, 146 N.H. 52 (N.H. 2001) (same principle: defendant testimony opened door to prior‑acts evidence about character/activity)
State v. Cochrane, 153 N.H. 420 (N.H. 2006) (lawful scope of lay testimony by officers interpreting HGN testing based on training)
United States v. Pelletier, 666 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (prior drug offenses admissible when defense opens issue of knowledge/intent/common plan)
United States v. Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2000) (admission of other incidents with same participants relevant to knowledge/intent/common plan)
State v. Wells, 166 N.H. 73 (N.H. 2014) (appellate review of Rule 403 balancing for prejudicial evidence)
State v. Nightingale, 160 N.H. 569 (N.H. 2010) (standard of review: unsustainable exercise of discretion)
State v. Bassett, 139 N.H. 493 (N.H. 1995) (other‑acts evidence must be closely connected by logically significant factors)
State v. Trempe, 140 N.H. 95 (N.H. 1995) (opening‑the‑door doctrine cannot be used to inject unfairly prejudicial evidence)