State v. Langill
161 N.H. 218
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Langill was convicted of burglary under RSA 635:1 (2007) after prior appellate proceedings.
- Katz stored about $1,200 (including ten $100 bills) in a locked box; money disappeared the day of the burglary with no forced entry.
- Langill lived in the same building as Katz and was observed near her unit; prior behavior included staring into open blinds.
- Fingerprint evidence: lifters collected from a lockbox and a bottle; one latent print on Katz’s dresser was analyzed by state criminologist Corson using ACE-V, identifying the defendant’s print.
- The State sought to admit Corson’s verification by a second examiner (Jackson) and accompanying business-records foundation; trial court permitted limited testimony and exhibits with limiting instructions.
- The jury convicted Langill; on appeal, the court held Corson’s verification testimony and its admission were erroneous, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Corson’s verification testimony | Langill contends verification testimony is hearsay and violative of confrontation. | Langill argues verification is improper hearsay; limits on cross-examination are violated. | Reversed; verification testimony admitted in error. |
| Admission of State’s Exhibit 1 (latent print photograph) despite lack of established link | Langill maintains exhibit should have been stricken for lack of proper foundation. | Langill argues the exhibit is insufficient to connect latent print to him. | Not reached on remand; decision deferred due to reversal on first issue. |
| Motion to dismiss based on sufficiency after reversal | Langill asserts insufficient evidence to convict if retrial occurs. | Langill contends no viable retrial would satisfy due process if evidence remains weak. | Not reached; remand controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Connor, 156 N.H. 544 ((2007)) (verification of fingerprint analysis deemed hearsay when used to prove truth)
- State v. Horak, 159 N.H. 576 ((2010)) (sufficiency review; double jeopardy considerations in retrial contexts)
- State v. Dahood, 148 N.H. 723 ((2002)) (foundation requirements for scientific testimony; admissibility dependent on proper procedure)
- State v. Cole, 139 N.H. 246 ((1994)) (general definition of hearsay; need for exceptions)
- State v. Soldi, 145 N.H. 571 ((2000)) (hearsay rule and exception analysis)