State v. Furgal
164 N.H. 430
N.H.2012Background
- On Oct. 31, 2009, Furgal attended a Merrimack house party at Brackett's; he was admitted despite not being invited.
- A dispute on the back porch over a missing iPod led Furgal to brandish a knife and threaten guests; Vydfol intervened and helped restrain him.
- Furgal and Vydfol's confrontation moved around Brackett's property; a group of guests gathered, some possibly with baseball bats.
- Vydfol restrained Furgal; Furgal felt hands on him, heard metal dragging, and stabbed Vydfol, who died from his injuries.
- Furgal claimed self-defense under RSA 627:4,11(a), arguing he believed Vydfol (possibly with others) was about to use deadly force against him.
- Trial court instructed self-defense law, refused to give Furgal's requested “in-concert” instruction, and excluded evidence of a prior altercation involving Vydfol where Furgal was not present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the self-defense instruction should have included in-concert danger | Furgal contends he could use deadly force if he reasonably believed Vydfol acted alone or with others. | State argues statute/precedent do not permit an in-concert instruction. | Instruction adequate; in-concert not required, but allowed in future. |
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding prior altercation evidence | Evidence of the prior altercation was relevant to state of mind and willingness of Brackett's group to threaten outsiders. | Evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial under rules prohibiting bad-acts evidence and propensity reasoning. | Exclusion sustained; evidence not relevant or admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davidson, 163 N.H. 462 (2012) (instructions must fairly cover legal issues; not required to use exact language)
- State v. McDonald, 163 N.H. 115 (2011) (statutory interpretation of self-defense principles; exact statutory language favored)
- State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (conduct negating self-defense can become element of offense; scope of instruction)
- Appeal of Liberty Assembly of God, 163 N.H. 622 (2012) (final arbiter of legislative intent in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70 (2003) (trial court's discretion in admission/exclusion of evidence)
- State v. Villeneuve, 160 N.H. 342 (2010) (unsustainable discretionary argument threshold for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 (2006) (defendant entitled to jury instruction on defense if any rational basis)