State v. Cherry, 2026 N.H. 22

Cherry was convicted of conspiracy to sell controlled drugs, four possession-with-intent counts, one sale count, and drug enterprise leader after a jury trial. 1
Before trial, the State joined the drug-related charges and the court denied Cherry’s suppression motion without a hearing. 2
The State also sought to admit broad evidence that Cherry generally owned and possessed firearms, plus evidence of firearms found with drugs in a co-conspirator’s vehicle. 3
At trial, witnesses testified that Cherry always carried guns and kept firearms in his car, while other evidence linked a revolver and shotgun to drugs found in a co-conspirator’s vehicle. 4
The State’s sale charge rested on a hotel-room transaction involving Williams and Furlow, whose testimony and seized white powder tested positive for fentanyl. 5
Cherry was convicted on all counts and appealed the firearms rulings, suppression ruling, sufficiency of the evidence, and joinder order. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Cherry’s general firearm possession 7	State said gun possession was intrinsic or Rule 404(b) evidence showing drug dealing.	Cherry said it was irrelevant propensity evidence.	Improperly admitted; irrelevant and inadmissible. 8
Firearms found with drugs in co-conspirator vehicle 9	State said revolver and shotgun were intrinsic and probative of drug trafficking.	Cherry said the evidence was unrelated and prejudicial.	Properly admitted as intrinsic evidence. 10
Prior possession of similar revolver 11	State said distinctive revolver evidence linked Cherry to the drug scheme.	Cherry said prior possession was extrinsic and prejudicial.	Extrinsic; not affirmable as admitted on this record. 12
Denial of suppression hearing 13	Cherry claimed a hearing was required for alleged warrant-affidavit misrepresentations.	State said the claim was unpreserved.	Argument not preserved; no review. 14
Joinder of sale charge with other drug charges 15	State said the charges were part of a common scheme or plan.	Cherry said joinder unfairly bolstered the weak sale count.	Sale charge was related, but joinder issue vacated and remanded for best-interests analysis. 16

State v. Rouleau, 176 N.H. 400 (2024) (distinguishes intrinsic from extrinsic evidence and governs other-acts analysis 17)
State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589 (2016) (Rule 404(b) requires a non-propensity purpose and logical connection to disputed issues 18)
State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544 (2013) (Rule 403 governs admissibility of intrinsic evidence 19)
State v. Folds, 172 N.H. 513 (2019) (guns found with drugs and cash may evidence drug dealing, but not every gun is incriminating 20)
United States v. Price, 13 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 1994) (gun evidence is not per se admissible in every drug conspiracy case 21)
State v. Bell, 175 N.H. 382 (2022) (defines related offenses and common-scheme joinder 22)
State v. Brown, 159 N.H. 544 (2009) (best-interests-of-justice joinder analysis and prejudice concerns 23)
State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270 (2010) (state constitutional claims must be preserved and sufficiency uses rational-trier standard 24)
State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410 (2011) (sufficiency review considers all evidence, even if erroneously admitted 25)
State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575 (2014) (affirmance on a ground not relied on below only when only one legal result is possible 26)