State v. Dorrance
165 N.H. 162
| N.H. | 2013Background
- Dorrance appealed his conviction for second-degree assault on Officer McKee.
- Officers McKee and Pushee pursued Dorrance after he ignored a no-wake zone stop signal.
- McKee boarded Dorrance’s boat; Dorrance shouted profanities and resisted boarding.
- McKee punched in the eye; he had eye swelling, temporary vision impairment, and about a week of work missed.
- Indictment alleged protracted vision impairment; judge denied defense motion to dismiss; jury instruction followed RSA 631:2, 1(a).
- Appellate review focused on whether McKee’s injuries constituted a protracted impairment under the serious bodily injury statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence shows protracted impairment to constitute serious bodily injury. | State contends McKee’s eye impairment was protracted. | Dorrance contends impairment was not protracted as a matter of law. | Yes; a rational jury could find protracted impairment and serious bodily injury. |
| How to interpret the term ‘protracted’ in RSA 625:11, VI. | State argues plain meaning of protracted as time-delayed or prolonged. | Dorrance argues a narrower, non-protracted reading. | Plain meaning governs; protracted means delayed or prolonged in time, a jury question. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilmot, 163 N.H. 148 (2012) (standard for sufficiency of evidence and review for guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Scognamiglio, 150 N.H. 534 (2004) (whether injuries constitute serious bodily injury is a jury question)
- State v. Plant, 124 N.H. 813 (1984) (serious bodily injury defined; jury question context)
- Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539 (2006) (interpretation of terms in statutes; plain meaning guidance)
- State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1 (1980) (examples of injuries supporting serious bodily injury)