144 A.3d 58
N.H.2016Background
- Arthur Kardonsky was charged with a Class B misdemeanor for driving with a suspended motor vehicle registration and a violation-level offense for driving with a suspended driver’s license.
- At trial Kardonsky testified he did not recall receiving notice of suspension and that his license and registration appeared valid on their face.
- The trial court found him not guilty of the misdemeanor (which it said required a mens rea of "knowingly") but guilty of the violation-level offense, concluding that violation-level offenses under RSA 263:64 do not require a mens rea.
- The court imposed a $250 fine and $60 penalty assessment; payment was stayed pending appeal.
- The sole appellate question was whether the violation-level offense in RSA 263:64 requires proof of the mens rea "knowingly."
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and elected to address the issue despite the State's preservation argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation-level offenses under RSA 263:64 require mens rea of "knowingly" | State: RSA 626:2 permits violations without mens rea; statute structure shows no mens rea required for violations | Kardonsky: same underlying conduct is penalized by both misdemeanors and violations; mens rea of "knowingly" applies | Reversed: violation-level offense under RSA 263:64 requires proof of "knowingly" |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curran, 140 N.H. 530 (1995) (interpreting mens rea requirement for misdemeanors in RSA 263:64)
- Camire v. Gunstock Area Comm’n, 166 N.H. 374 (2014) (preservation is a limitation on parties, not the court)
- State v. Mayo, 167 N.H. 443 (2015) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- State v. Maxfield, 167 N.H. 677 (2015) (use plain and ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- Korean Methodist Church of N.H. v. State, 157 N.H. 254 (2008) (the word "may" is permissive in statutory construction)
- Straut v. Carpenter, 92 N.H. 123 (1942) (addressed Financial Responsibility Act—court found it inapplicable here)
- Fuller v. Sirois, 97 N.H. 100 (1951) (clarifying precedential scope of Straut)