State v. Moncada, 20 A.3d 904

Moncada was convicted of three AFSA counts, ten felonious sexual assault counts, and one bail jumping count.
The charges arise from sexual contact with A.G., a 13-year-old, daughter of Moncada's girlfriend Lisa W.
Moncada lived with Lisa and their children near A.G., and periodically cared for the children and accompanied them.
The State sought to prove Moncada was a member of A.G.’s household; the jury heard about joint housing and daily involvement with the children.
At trial, Dr. Adams (state forensic psychiatrist) and Dr. Mart (defense psychologist) offered competing views on Moncada’s competency.
The trial court found Moncada competent to stand trial; the jury later convicted on all counts presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to stand trial	State contends competency established by concrete explanations.	Moncada argues deficits impede meaningful consultation and understanding.	Competency supported; no reversible error.
Sufficiency of evidence—household member	State asserts sufficient household involvement given daily care and shared residence.	Moncada asserts lack of household status due to concealment from children and limited presence.	Sufficient evidence that Moncada and A.G. were household members.

State v. Gourlay, 148 N.H. 75 (2002) (two-pronged competency test; presumption of fair trial if competent)
State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5 (2001) (requires rational understanding and present ability to consult)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (competency standard under state constitution with federal aid)
State v. Chen, 148 N.H. 565 (2002) (upholds trial court’s factual findings when supported by record)
State v. Paglierani, 139 N.H. 37 (1994) (short victim presence not dispositive for household status)
State v. Hearns, 151 N.H. 226 (2004) (definition of household; living with defendant in same residence)