State v. Max Wilson
159 A.3d 859
| N.H. | 2017Background
- Defendant Max Wilson is a New Hampshire registered sex offender with a prior sexual-assault conviction qualifying under RSA 632-A:10, I.
- Victim (age 14) and family knew defendant through church/home; victim’s father asked defendant (Jan 6) to provide Bible devotions, counseling, schooling help and “manhood” instruction.
- Defendant thereafter spent time with the victim on Jan 7 and Jan 10 (shopping, meals, homework, model-building, Bible devotions); victim’s mother discovered defendant was a registered sex offender on Jan 10 and contact was terminated.
- Defendant was indicted on four counts under RSA 632-A:10, I (prohibiting persons with certain convictions from undertaking employment or volunteer service involving care, instruction or guidance of minors) for acts on different dates/locations; jury convicted on all four counts.
- Defendant moved to dismiss (insufficient evidence; statute void for vagueness; double jeopardy), convicted, sentenced to consecutive terms; pleaded guilty in companion informations to sexual-assault charges arising from volunteer conduct.
- On appeal, Supreme Court of New Hampshire: affirmed denial of dismissal for insufficiency and vagueness (as-applied), but held multiple convictions violated federal double jeopardy (unit of prosecution is each separate "undertaking") and ordered three convictions vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / meaning of "volunteer service" | Statute covers unpaid activity providing care/instruction/guidance whether or not through an organization; State produced evidence of defendant undertaking such service | "Volunteer service" should be limited to unpaid services provided through a formal organization; absent that, evidence was insufficient | Court rejects organizational limitation; viewing evidence in State's favor, convictions supported — denial of dismissal for insufficiency affirmed |
| Vagueness (facial & as-applied) | Statute not unconstitutionally vague; defendant’s conduct falls within its core and statute supplies limiting terms | Statute vague: ordinary person could not know if activities (Bible devotions, counseling, homework help) are prohibited; permits arbitrary enforcement | Facial challenge not preserved; as-applied challenge rejected — defendant’s conduct plainly involved care/instruction/guidance and fell within core prohibitions; vagueness claim denied |
| Unit of prosecution / Double jeopardy (multiple convictions) | Each separate instance/place/date of providing care/instruction/guidance is a separate offense; "undertakes" means each performance | "Undertakes" is a single arrangement; the Jan 6 parental request and subsequent sessions formed a single undertaking — at most one offense | Court holds "undertakes" denotes an arrangement/placement to provide services; all acts Jan 6–10 constituted one undertaking; multiple convictions and sentences violated federal double jeopardy — three convictions vacated |
| Timeliness of multiplicity challenge (procedural) | Multiplicity defect could have been raised pretrial; but not apparent on indictments' face | Defendant timely raised double jeopardy after trial; multiplicity issue not obvious until evidence produced | Rule requiring pretrial motions (Super. Ct. Crim. R. 98(G)) interpreted like Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3): multiplicity need be raised pretrial only if defect is apparent on indictment’s face; here defect not apparent — defendant’s motion timely; merits prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514 (N.H. 2014) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency/statutory interpretation)
- State v. Meaney, 134 N.H. 741 (N.H. 1991) (discussion of ejusdem generis canon)
- New Hampshire Gas & Electric Co. v. State, 86 N.H. 16 (N.H. 1932) (ejusdem generis focuses on characteristics material to the statutory purpose)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights and presumption that parents act in child’s best interests)
- Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006) (vagueness analysis: statute provides standards or conduct falls within statute’s core)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1984) (double jeopardy analysis centers on legislative intent and unit of prosecution)