State v. Craig Michael Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400

Background

Defendant Craig Sanborn owned Black Mag LLC and operated a Colebrook facility producing Black Mag gunpowder; production proceeded despite safety specifications from the powder owner and governmental limits on storage.
Magkor and safety experts provided a facility layout calling for machine spacing, bunkering/barriers, and remote operation; defendant acknowledged the recommendations but did not implement them.
Facility conditions included closely grouped machines, manual loading/unloading while machines ran, non‑explosion‑rated wiring, open‑flame heater, no formal safety program or training, and storage of mixed powder near equipment.
Two employees (Kendall and Kennett) died in a May 14, 2010 explosion; exact initiating event could not be determined, but an explosives expert testified remote operation and compliance with spacing would have prevented their exposure to the fatal blast.
Defendant was convicted by jury of two counts each of manslaughter (reckless causation) and negligent homicide (negligent causation); sentenced to consecutive 5–10 year terms on the two manslaughter convictions only.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Sanborn's Argument	Held
Jury alternates selection (RSA 500‑A:13)	Court complied by swearing and seating alternates with jury; statute does not require pre‑designation before peremptories	Court erred by not designating alternates before peremptory challenges, impairing intelligent exercise of peremptories	Affirmed: statute’s plain language satisfied; no requirement to identify alternates before peremptories
Attorney‑conducted voir dire	Court’s voir dire plus extensive follow‑up questioning by counsel sufficed to ferret out bias	Denial of attorney voir dire prevented adequate exploration of publicity/latent bias	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; voir dire was thorough and counsel questioned jurors on multiple occasions
Sufficiency of evidence / causation	Even without proving precise initiating event, evidence supports that defendant’s omissions were both but‑for and proximate cause of deaths; expert testified remote operation would have prevented exposure	Alleged supervening acts (watch falling, machine over‑speed, smoking, possible intoxication) broke causal chain so evidence was insufficient	Affirmed: viewing all evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt causation and mens rea for manslaughter and negligent homicide
Bill of particulars / unanimity on factual predicates	Bill supplied means and did not convert every listed allegation into an element; jury must be unanimous only on statutory elements (mens rea and causation), not on which particular act produced causation	Trial court should have required State to prove each allegation in bill beyond reasonable doubt and jury unanimity as to factual predicates; failure prejudiced defense/double jeopardy	Affirmed: allegations were not elements; no prejudicial variance; jury need only be unanimous on elements, not specific factual predicates (Doucette control)
Double jeopardy / sentencing on greater offense	Convictions on both greater and lesser allowed but sentencing on greater only does not constitute double punishment	Jury’s multiple guilty verdicts (guilty on negligent homicide and manslaughter) created ambiguity; defendant should be sentenced on lesser	Affirmed: verdicts were unambiguous (separate charges tried and found guilty); sentencing on manslaughter only did not violate double jeopardy (Baillargeon distinguishable)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jaroma, 137 N.H. 562 (noting alternates generally selected prior to trial; not interpreted as statutory mandate)
State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276 (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
State v. French, 146 N.H. 97 (bill of particulars purpose and when particulars become elements)
State v. Doucette, 146 N.H. 583 (unanimity required as to elements but not as to multiple factual predicates supporting an element)
State v. Baillargeon, 124 N.H. 355 (discussing unalterably ambiguous verdicts when jury fails to specify which offense was meant)
State v. Lamprey, 149 N.H. 364 (causation requires both but‑for and proximate causation)
State v. Sleeper, 150 N.H. 725 (jury unanimity principles regarding essential culpable act)