State v. James Fogg, 168 A.3d 1145

On Nov. 11, 2014, James Fogg’s vehicle struck another car in Concord; both vehicles were destroyed and both occupants of the other vehicle suffered serious injuries (one permanently disabled).
Fogg admitted marijuana use; hospital blood tested positive for multiple drugs including Xanax and Suboxone; officers observed signs of impairment.
State charged Fogg with two counts of aggravated DWI under RSA 265-A:3 — one count for each injured occupant — and proceeded to trial on an agreed offer of proof.
Fogg moved to dismiss one count, arguing the statute supports only one aggravated DWI per occasion; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him on both counts, relying on State v. Bailey.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the statutory construction of RSA 265-A:3 de novo and examined whether the unit of prosecution depends on the number of injured persons.

Issue	Plaintiff's (State) Argument	Defendant's (Fogg) Argument	Held
Whether RSA 265-A:3 allows multiple aggravated DWI counts when multiple persons are seriously injured in a single collision	RSA: statute and legislative history permit multiple counts based on each injured person	Only one aggravated DWI arises from operating the vehicle on a particular occasion; unit of prosecution is the act of driving while intoxicated	Court held only a single aggravated DWI charge arises from operating a vehicle on a particular occasion; reversed one conviction
Whether double jeopardy bars multiple aggravated DWI convictions based on same conduct	Multiple counts are permissible so no double jeopardy problem	Multiple convictions violate double jeopardy because statutory unit is a single occasion of intoxicated driving	Court did not reach constitutional double jeopardy issues after resolving statutory interpretation

State v. Bailey, 127 N.H. 811 (1956) (trial court relied on this case when allowing multiple charges based on multiple injuries)
State v. Thiel, 160 N.H. 462 (2010) (statutory interpretation standards; de novo review)
State v. Maxfield, 167 N.H. 677 (2015) (construing statutes to effectuate overall purpose and avoid absurd results)
State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381 (2013) (principle to decide constitutional questions only when necessary)
State v. Carter, 167 N.H. 161 (2014) (noting legislature may change law if court interpretation differs)