State v. Fischer, 165 N.H. 706

Defendant Fischer appeals after a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of second degree assault with extended terms.
Victim, Fischer’s wife, described repeated assaults including choking, head injury, and being dragged, with injuries corroborated by medical staff.
Two separate incidents—one in the living room and one in the kitchen—formed the basis for the two assault charges alleging bodily injury under extreme indifference.
The State presented witness testimony and medical evidence; the jury acquitted the count for the broken finger but convicted on the other two assaults.
Fischer challenged evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence for extreme indifference, jury instructions, double jeopardy, extended-term requirements, and unanimity on bodily injury.
The trial court denied the challenges; the Supreme Court affirmed, addressing each issue in turn.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Busch’s excited utterance	Busch testimony admissible as excited utterance.	Admission was error and prejudicial.	Harmless error; overwhelming other evidence supported guilt.
Sufficiency of evidence for extreme indifference	Evidence showed extreme indifference in both assaults.	Insufficient to prove extreme indifference.	Sufficient evidence to sustain both extreme-indifference convictions.
Jury instructions on extreme indifference	Instructions properly conveyed extreme indifference standard.	Instructions failed to capture required substantial-risk language.	No error; instructions adequately conveyed the standard.
Double jeopardy for two second degree assaults	Separate incidents justified two convictions.	Punishments for same offense.	Not a double jeopardy violation; separate acts/instances support separate offenses.
Imposition of extended terms	Statute properly applied given prior imprisonments on sentences over one year.	Statute vague and misapplied.	Extended terms properly imposed; statute interpreted to require two prior imprisonments on sentences over one year.
Unanimity on specific bodily injury	No error in not requiring unanimous agreement on a specific injury.	Jury must unanimously agree on the exact bodily injury.	No plain error; no requirement to unanimously specify a particular bodily injury.

State v. McDonald, 163 N.H. 115 (2011) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for sustainable discretion)
State v. Rodriguez, 164 N.H. 800 (2013) (harmless error analysis for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Fletcher, 129 N.H. 641 (1987) (extreme indifference defined as blatant disregard for life risk)
State v. Bailey, 127 N.H. 416 (1985) (extreme indifference requires a blatant disregard for risk to life)
State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (jury instructions reviewed for sustainable discretion)
State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596 (2008) (extended-term statute interpreted after Apprendi line of cases)
State v. Motton, 163 N.H. 411 (2012) (standard for extended-term imprisonment clarified)
State v. Russo, 164 N.H. 585 (2013) (twice previously imprisoned requirement for extended terms)
State v. McGurk, 157 N.H. 765 (2008) (double jeopardy analysis standard)
State v. Greene, 137 N.H. 126 (1993) (plain-error analysis for unanimity on multiple acts)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (construes constitutional protections against multiple punishments)