State v. Moussa, 164 N.H. 108

In 2005, a Rockingham County grand jury indicted Moussa on three counts of stalking for letters allegedly sent after he received notice of a protective order (12/10/04).
The victim, to whom Moussa had been married for about 11 years, testified that they were divorced at trial.
The letters were written in Arabic but claimed to be from others; some letters used aliases (Carlos Santana) and had different returns; the third was postmarked from Manchester, NH.
Fingerprints of Moussa were found on each letter, and the letters included threats similar to prior ones.
During trial, Moussa elected to proceed pro se after indicating dissatisfaction with his court-appointed counsel; the court allowed self-representation and limited defense preparations.
The jury convicted Moussa on all three counts and he was sentenced to 3.5 to 7 years per count, to run consecutively to prior sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could force self-representation versus counsel	Moussa argues compelled choice violates right to counsel	Moussa contends forced choice impaired effective assistance	No unsustainable discretion; proper standard applied
Whether evidentiary rulings were plain error	State asserts rulings were correct or harmless	Moussa claims several rulings were plain errors	No plain error established on challenged rulings
Whether the court erred in sentencing by denying counsel at sentencing	State contends sentencing is critical stage; denial may be error	Moussa asserts denial violated right to counsel	No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion in denying counsel at sentencing
Whether felony sentences were proper under statutory framework	173-B:9, IV may authorize felony enhancement	633:3-a, VI limits to misdemeanors	RSA 173-B:9, IV applies as the more specific control; felony sentences affirmed

United States v. Woodard, 291 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2002) (court may force defendant to choose between unwanted counsel and self-representation)
United States v. Richardson, 894 F.2d 492 (1st Cir. 1990) (right to counsel not absolute; balance interests in substitute counsel)
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (2001) (unsustainable exercise of discretion standard for counsel issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel; deference to strategic decisions)
State v. Euliano, 161 N.H. 601 (2011) (plain error standard and limits on reviewing errors)
Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004) (sentencing counsel right extended to critical stages)