State v. Davidson
163 N.H. 462
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Davidson and complainant lived together in Oct 2009; on Oct 11 they argued at work and after, culminating in a physical struggle over keys on the stairs, where the complainant ended up on her back and the defendant above her with some contact to her face; the defendant retrieved the keys and left.
- The complainant followed, the defendant backed his car into her, injuring the side-view mirror, then returned to the home and attempted to barricade himself in the bedroom, causing a hole in the door.
- The next day the complainant had a bruised eye; the defendant sent hostile texts and moved out that afternoon; later text apologized and referenced
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of controlling-behavior evidence under Rule 404(b) | State offered as motive/intent context, not propensity | Evidence is improper propensity evidence; should be limited to context/motive | Admission errant; reversed convictions for simple assault on this basis |
| Right to a jury instruction on defense of property under RSA 627:8 | Statutory text supports defense when property is unlawfully taken | Court wrongly limited defense to theft scenario; instruction warranted | Trial court erred; remand for potential instructional entitlement |
Key Cases Cited
- McGlew v. State, 139 N.H. 505 (1995) (admissibility of other acts and Rule 404(b) framework; harmless-error standard)
- Stott v. State, 149 N.H. 170 (2003) (analysis of Rule 404(b) relevance and context vs. propensity)
- Melcher v. State, 140 N.H. 823 (1996) (context evidence permissible for non-propensity purposes)
- Glodgett v. State, 144 N.H. 687 (2000) (limits on context evidence and reliance on non-propensity purpose)
- Hickey v. State, 129 N.H. 53 (1986) (need for limiting instructions to curb improper inference)
- State v. Richardson, 38 N.H. 208 (1859) (unlawful taking and force in defense of property broader doctrine)
- Astro Spectacular, 138 N.H. 298 (1994) (legislative intent in interpreting defense-of-property statutes)
- City of Manchester v. Sec'y of State, 161 N.H. 127 (2010) (static about interpretive canons and expressio unius)