State v. Clark
337 A.3d 193
N.H.2024Background
- Matthew Clark was charged with felony criminal threatening with a deadly weapon based on a recorded conversation with the complainant, who was a party to the conversation and made the recording without Clark’s consent.
- The recording was later provided to law enforcement and sought to be used as evidence at trial.
- Clark moved to suppress the recording, arguing it was made in violation of New Hampshire’s Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Law (RSA chapter 570-A), which prohibits certain unauthorized recordings.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding that the complainant’s one-party recording constituted only a misdemeanor violation because she was a party to the communication, and that suppression is required only for felony violations under RSA 570-A:6.
- Clark appealed, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted interlocutory review to clarify when suppression under RSA 570-A:6 is required.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RSA 570-A:6 require suppression for all violations? | Suppression applies to any violation, misdemeanor or felony. | Suppression applies only to felony violations. | Suppression is required only for felony violations of the statute. |
| Is a one-party recording a felony or misdemeanor? | One-party recording should be treated as a felony. | One-party recording by a participant is a misdemeanor. | One-party recording by a participant is a misdemeanor under RSA 570-A:2, I-a. |
| Does disclosure to police elevate the offense to a felony? | Disclosure transforms a misdemeanor into a felony. | Disclosure of a misdemeanor recording isn’t felony. | Remand to trial court to determine if disclosure in this case was a felony offense. |
| Court’s application of statutory language | Court misapplied the statute, requiring suppression. | Court correctly interpreted and applied the statute. | Trial court interpreted law correctly; remand for factual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Czekalski, 169 N.H. 732 (N.H. 2017) (interpreting the phrase "this paragraph" in New Hampshire’s wiretapping law)
- State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65 (N.H. 2014) (discussing mens rea requirements for wiretapping offenses)
- State v. MacMillan, 152 N.H. 67 (N.H. 2005) (defining one-party interception in the context of wiretapping)
- In the Matter of Liquidation of Home Ins. Co., 175 N.H. 363 (N.H. 2022) (articulating procedural standards for record acceptance)
- State v. Minson, 173 N.H. 501 (N.H. 2020) (review standard for trial court’s suppression rulings)
- State v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (N.H. 2020) (remand appropriate after clarifying law on appeal)