State v. Cassavaugh
12 A.3d 1277
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Cassavaugh was convicted of first degree murder of Jennifer Huard and second degree murder of Jeremy Huard after a trial in New Hampshire; the defense challenged admission of prior threats, and two police interviews and related transcripts/video; the murders occurred after a summer 2006 relationship with Jennifer, with extensive drug use and heated disputes; Jennifer and Jeremy were found dead on defendant's grandparents' property, with blood and ballistic/forensic links tying the defendant to the scene; the defendant gave inconsistent statements, terminated an initial interview, and later invoked silence in a second interview while denying involvement; the State admitted Sanborn’s testimony about a prior threat and portions of the two police interviews over the defendant's objections; the Supreme Court reviews admissibility under Rule 404(b), plain error, and Rule 403 for the redacted second interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior threat under Rule 404(b) | State—relevant to intent for first degree murder | Cassavaugh—prejudicial and improper propensity evidence | Admissible for intent; not unduly prejudicial |
| Plain error from admitting initial interview termination | State—proper to show context and confusion management | Cassavaugh—invoked right to silence; error | Error admitted but not reversible; no substantial rights affected |
| Rule 403 balance of second interview with redacted silence | Evidence highly probative of consciousness of guilt | Unduly prejudicial or confusing | Redacted interview highly probative; prejudice not substantial; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643 (2006) (three-part Rule 404(b) test and necessity of nexus)
- State v. Pepin, 156 N.H. 269 (2007) (intent when intent is not conceded; prior threats admissible to prove intent)
- State v. Sawtell, 152 N.H. 177 (2005) (prior threats admissible to prove intent with same parties and similar circumstances)
- State v. Yates, 152 N.H. 245 (2005) (balancing probative value and prejudice under Rule 404(b))
- State v. Nightingale, 160 N.H. 569 (2010) (prejudicial vs. probative value under Rule 404(b))
- State v. Remick, 149 N.H. 745 (2003) (pre-arrest silence in State's case-in-chief unconstitutional)