State v. Brooks, 164 N.H. 272

Brooks was convicted of capital murder (solicitation and kidnapping-based), first-degree murder as an accomplice, and conspiracy, related to Reid's death.
The State introduced extensive business-record evidence authenticated by 902(11) custodian certifications; Brooks challenged Confrontation Clause rights.
Brooks challenged the FBI agent’s testimony describing Reid family statements as peculiar or not fully truthful.
A new medical examiner opinion about rocks on the body was disclosed late; Brooks claimed it violated discovery rules.
The court instructed on multiple theories of murder, including accomplice liability, with no mandatory ‘predominating cause’ instruction.
The State sought to prove kidnapping as a predicate for capital murder under statutes addressing solicitation and conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause and 902(11) affidavits	Brooks argues custodial affidavits are testimonial and violate Crawford.	Brooks contends Rule 902(11) certifications impermissibly substitute live testimony.	Rule 902(11) certifications are nonTestimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation.
Admission of FBI agent's credibility opinion	Hanlon’s credibility opinion was improper lay testimony about others’ truthfulness.	Such opinion invaded jurors’ role and violated Lopez.	Admission was error but harmless given overwhelming evidence.
Predominating cause instruction under Seymour	Predominating cause required to distinguish among theories of death.	Jury needed a predominate cause instruction to resolve which blows caused death.	No predominate-cause instruction required; accomplice liability allowed convicting without sole cause.
Solicitation variant and personal pecuniary gain	RSA 630:1,1(c) applies to the solicited party’s own gain; broad interpretation.	The statute requires the sol·icitor to act for personal gain regardless of who solicited.	Plain language applies ‘for his own pecuniary gain’ to the solicited party only.
Predicate crime under kidnapping variant and merger doctrine	Confinement must be tied to a separate objective beyond murder.	Merger doctrine requires independent purpose beyond killing.	Kidnapping cannot be incidental to murder; totality of circumstances required; instruction affirmed as correct.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements trigger Confrontation Clause concerns)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certifications as evidence; confrontation concerns narrowed)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (confrontation analysis for forensic evidence)
State v. O’Maley, 156 N.H. 125 (N.H. 2007) (test for testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in state)
Lamprey v. State, 149 N.H. 364 (N.H. 2003) (jury instructions on multiple participants and accomplice liability)