State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585

Ortiz was convicted by a jury on two counts of AFSA (one pattern AFSA), one count of FSA, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.
The pattern AFSA indictment alleged a pattern of sexual assaults against a juvenile female under 16 not his spouse, within 2 months to 5 years, occurring from 1994 to 1996.
Ortiz moved to dismiss the pattern AFSA charge at the close of the State’s case; the court denied the motion.
The trial court later incorrectly stated the pattern AFSA sentence would be concurrent with the AFSA sentence; upon realizing the error, the court stated the pattern AFSA sentence should be consecutive.
Ortiz challenged the indictment, the jury instruction on mens rea for the FSA charge, the admissibility of lay witness testimony, and the pattern AFSA sentence arrangement on appeal; the Supreme Court affirmed all assignments of error.
The court conducted a plain error review and held no reversible error on the challenged issues, and affirmed the overall judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pattern AFSA indictment was defective.	Ortiz argued the indictment lacked the statutory definition of 'pattern'.	Ortiz contends the indictment deprived the court of jurisdiction and failed to notify adequately.	Indictment defect did not deprive jurisdiction; plain error not established.
Whether the jury instruction misstate the mens rea for FSA.	Ortiz claimed the instruction used 'knowingly' instead of 'purposely.'	Ortiz argued error in mental-state instruction prejudiced him.	Plain error acknowledged but not outcome-determinative; no reversal.
Whether lay witness testimony about inconsistencies and recantation was permissible.	Ortiz contends such lay testimony was improper.	Ortiz asserts it improperly influenced the jury.	Harmless error; evidence of victim’s detailed testimony was overwhelming.
Whether the pattern AFSA sentence could be corrected from concurrent to consecutive without due process violation.	Ortiz argues the correction violated due process after sentencing.	Ortiz asserts the original sentence was clear and legal; corrections were improper.	Court authority to correct clerical error; correction did not violate due process.

State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379 (2009) (indictment must apprise defendant of the charges; elements and essential facts)
State v. Panarello, 157 N.H. 204 (2008) (plain error standard requires obvious error)
State v. Fletcher, 158 N.H. 207 (2009) (two-step due process correction of sentences; jurisdiction to amend clerical errors)
State v. Van Winkle, 160 N.H. 337 (2010) (retains jurisdiction to amend only certain sentence types)
State v. Stern, 150 N.H. 705 (2004) (clerical error correction of sentencing; timely correction guidance)
State v. Richard, 160 N.H. 780 (2010) (self-defense burden and related due process considerations)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (indictment defects do not deprive jurisdiction)
Webster v. Powell, Commissioner, 138 N.H. 36 (1993) (historical clerical error jurisprudence in sentencing)