State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57

Etienne was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial in New Hampshire.
Lemieux was killed on Central Street in Manchester after tensions with Etienne and his associates.
Etienne argued self-defense and defense of others; the State argued premeditation and deliberation supported by multiple witnesses and conduct.
Evidence showed Etienne and his group armed themselves, approached Lemieux on a porch, and Etienne fired the fatal shot after moving behind Lemieux.
The court addressed jury instructions, hearsay, potential discovery issues, and whether immunization for a witness was needed, affirming the conviction.
The legislature’s amendments to RSA 627:4 post-Warren did not alter the court’s interpretation that deadly force requires no explicit statutory necessity, and the court ultimately affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deadly-force instruction required 'necessity' improperly.	Etienne argues RSA 627:4 I does not require necessity for deadly force.	State argues common-law necessity is implicit in deadly-force use; instruction correct.	Instruction did not err; necessity implicit in deadly-force rule.
Whether third-party provocation negates self-defense.	Etienne contends error in allowing provocation by a third party to negate defense.	State contends error harmless since proof of elements showed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction stands.
Admission of Gobis’s testimony about a dispute.	Defense argues testimony was hearsay with minimal probative value and substantial prejudice.	State argues it was cumulative; probative value outweighed prejudice.	Error, if any, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming other evidence.
Failure to disclose exculpatory information about Gomez’s cooperation.	State allegedly withheld a proffer letter showing cooperation; material to credibility.	Withholding could be reversible if material; burden-shifting applies.	Not reversible; undisclosed evidence not material; trial court’s ruling affirmed.
Whether the State’s failure to immunize Gomez violated due process.	Immunization could reveal perjury; failure to immunize could affect outcome.	No exculpatory impact; immunization not required.	No due process violation; immunity not required.

State v. Warren, 147 N.H. 567 (N.H. 2002) (deadly force generally requires reasonable necessity; cohabitant context clarified)
State v. McKeown, 159 N.H. 434 (N.H. 2009) (statutory interpretation of RSA 627:4; plain language favored)
State v. Warren, 147 N.H. 567 (N.H. 2002) (deadly force and dwelling defenses; common law considerations)
State v. Soucy, 139 N.H. 349 (N.H. 1995) (right to a jury determination on all elements; defense burdens)
State v. O’Leary, 153 N.H. 710 (N.H. 2006) (harmless error framework for certain trial errors)