State v. Guay, 164 N.H. 696

Guay was convicted in Superior Court of two counts of unlawful operation of a solid waste facility and one count of unlawful maintenance of a subsurface septic system.
Guay owned 180 Clinton Street and 30 Villanova Drive in Concord; Paul Vera, his employee, lived in 180 Clinton Street basement.
Police and DES conducted searches at both properties after Vera reported hazardous materials and septic violations in 2009.
At 30 Villanova Drive they found numerous waste items; at 180 Clinton Street both above-ground debris and buried materials were found.
A DES investigator observed liquid from a sump pump bypassing the septic system’s leach field, discharging toward the Turkey River, with tests showing fecal contamination.
The State presented extensive evidence—eighteen witnesses and 172 exhibits—connecting Guay to operating and maintaining an improper waste/sewage system.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Penalty interpretation under RSA 485-A:37	485-A:37 may expose violators to criminal misdemeanor under 485-A:43, I, not just civil forfeiture.	Violations are subject to civil forfeiture only under RSA 485-A:43, IV.	Violations may be punished with both criminal and civil penalties.
Plain error due to admitted witness credibility evidence	Improper credibility references by officers cross-examination harmed Guay.	Any errors were plain but did not prejudice the outcome.	Three credibility-related issues did not constitute plain error affecting the outcome; trial record supported guilt.
Effect of prosecutorial questioning on credibility	Cross-examination forced Guay to comment on others’ truthfulness, prejudicing him.	These questions violated witness-credibility norms and prejudiced the defense.	Not plain error; evidence overwhelmingly supported guilt.

Ouellette v. Town of Kingston, 157 N.H. 604 (2008) (statutory-interpretation framework; consider statute as a whole)
State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (interpret statutes in the context of overall statutory scheme)
Pennelli v. Town of Pelham, 148 N.H. 365 (2002) (avoid superfluous or redundant statutory language)
State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416 (2007) (broad prohibition on questions forcing witness to comment on credibility)
State v. Souksamrane, 164 N.H. 425 (2012) (prosecutorial cross-examination pressuring defendant to deny credibility of others)
State v. Taylor, 152 N.H. 719 (2005) (standard for prejudicial impact on substantial rights)
State v. Bell, 125 N.H. 425 (1984) (principle on general vs. detailed statutory provisions)