State v. Furgal, 13 A.3d 272

Defendant Corey Furgal charged with a life-punishable offense after a fatal stabbing; witnesses identified him; grand jury indicted on alternate second-degree murder counts.
RSA 597:1-c provides no-bail detention if the State proves the offense is punishable by life and that the proof is evident or the presumption great.
The State sought detention without bail pending trial under RSA 597:1-c; defense challenged both the statute and the burden-shifting implication.
Trial court held RSA 597:1-c facially constitutional, determined the State bears initial burden and that proof is evident or presumption great must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, then denied bail.
New Hampshire’s general rule is release pending trial; RSA 597:2 governs nonmonetary conditions and monetary bail only after a threshold finding that release would not reasonably assure appearance or endanger safety.
The court examined the historical background of bail and concluded RSA 597:1-c fits the narrow exception for offenses carrying life imprisonment and focuses on the strength of the State’s case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does RSA 597:1-c violate due process by restricting consideration of flight risk or dangerousness?	Furgal argues the statute prevents individualized inquiry.	State defends statute as focusing on guilt evidence, not requiring individualized risk.	No; statute limits inquiry to proof-evident standard, not individual risk.
Does RSA 597:1-c shift the burden to the defendant after the State shows proof is evident or presumption great?	State bears initial burden; defense contends burden shifts.	Statute is not shifting burden; it states defendant shall not be allowed bail after State’s burden.	No; plain language does not shift burden; it ends in no-bail denial once burden is met.
What standard of proof applies to prove “proof is evident or presumption great” under RSA 597:1-c?	State must show beyond a reasonable doubt.	Statute requires some form of heightened proof; trial court adopted clear and convincing.	Clear and convincing evidence is the proper standard.
Are there required procedural protections at bail hearings under RSA 597:1-c beyond appointing counsel?	Federal procedural protections may apply; need explicit choice of standard.	Statute adequate; procedural protections not fully decided here.	At minimum, right to counsel; broader protections not decided.

Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (upheld substantial governmental interest in community safety in bail context; no automatic individualized inquiry required)
Lamy, 158 N.H. 511 (2009) (de novo statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
Jennings, 159 N.H. 1 (2009) (interpretation of statutory scheme in context of legislature’s intent)
Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261 (2004) (discussed burden for “proof is evident” in bail decisions; preferred clear standard)
Haynes, 290 Or. 75, 619 P.2d 632 (1980) (definition of “clear and convincing” standard in similar context)
Brill v. Gurich, 965 P.2d 404 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (illustrates application of clear-and-convincing standard in bail)