State v. Charest, 164 N.H. 252

Defendant Jonathan Charest was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm under RSA 159:3,1.
The jury found that he possessed a firearm, as reflected in a special verdict.
The trial court sentenced him to three to six years, applying the mandatory minimum of three years under RSA 651:2, Il-g.
The trial judge stated there was no discretion to impose a lesser sentence.
Defendant argued the conviction lacked an element rendering the firearm a deadly weapon under RSA 625:11, V and that the jury did not find deadly-weapon use; he invoked plain error.
The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding the error was plain and affected substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a firearm per se a deadly weapon under RSA 651:2, Il-g?	State argues firearms listed in RSA 159:3,1(a) are per se deadly weapons.	Charest contends a firearm is not a deadly weapon per se for RSA 651:2, Il-g.	Firearm not per se a deadly weapon.
Did the error affect substantial rights and warrant plain-error relief?	Plain-error standard not argued; error harmless.	Error affected substantial rights and warrants reversal/remand.	Error was plain and affected substantial rights; sentence vacated and remanded.

State v. Mohamed, 159 N.H. 559 (2009) (firearm not a deadly weapon per se for RSA 651:2, Il-g)
State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403 (2006) (discussed RSA 651:2, II-g and firearm scope)
State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413 (2009) (whether use renders firearm a deadly weapon)
State v. Bird, 161 N.H. 31 (2010) (upheld RSA 651:2, Il-g where underlying felony included deadly weapon use)
State v. Panarello, 157 N.H. 204 (2008) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
State v. Taylor, 152 N.H. 719 (2005) (plain-error substantial-rights analysis)
State v. Mohamed, 159 N.H. 559 (2009) (plain discussion of lack of element in offense and RSA 651:2 context)