State v. Owen Labrie, 198 A.3d 263

Background

Owen Labrie, an 18-year-old senior and prefect at St. Paul’s School (SPS), was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual-offense charges, including use of computer services to entice a person believed to be under 16 (RSA 649-B:4, I(a)).
The school had a "senior salute" tradition in which seniors sent invitations to underclass students; sexual contact was commonly implied. Labrie included the 15‑year‑old victim on a list of targets and exchanged e-mails and Facebook messages with her and third parties leading up to a May 30 meeting.
The victim initially declined Labrie’s emailed invitation but later agreed to meet him privately; during the encounter in a boiler room/roof area Labrie performed oral sex, digitally penetrated, and had intercourse with the victim.
Labrie made post‑encounter statements to peers and the victim admitting intercourse; physical evidence (biological material and Labrie’s DNA profile on the underwear crotch panel) and a rape kit were introduced at trial.
At trial Labrie challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence under the computer‑enticing statute; (2) the court’s exclusion/non‑recall of cross‑examination aimed at revealing a witness’s alleged bias; and (3) the court’s failure to sua sponte correct alleged misstatements by the prosecutor in closing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency under RSA 649‑B:4, I(a) (use of computer services to seduce/entice a child)	State: communications and surrounding conduct (list, messages, recruiting a friend, meeting plan, brought condom, post‑admissions, sexual act occurred) support intent to "seduce, solicit, lure, or entice."	Labrie: statute requires sexual content or deception in the computer messages; mere social acquaintance messages are insufficient to show intent to entice sexual penetration of a minor.	Affirmed. Court applies plain meaning of "seduce/solicit/lure/entice," finds no requirement of explicit sexual content or deception; totality of communications and conduct sufficed to prove intent.
Cross‑examination of State witness regarding alleged prior similar conduct and bias	State: excluded as irrelevant/improper character evidence.	Labrie: exclusion prevented probing witness bias/motive to be untruthful, violating confrontation rights.	Affirmed. Court found defendant waived confrontation claim by failing to pursue the court's offer to recall/supplement the offer of proof; counsel's tactical decision binds defendant.
Prosecutor's alleged misstatements about biological evidence in closing; court's failure to sua sponte correct	State: closing emphasized physical evidence corroborating victim; any imprecision not patently egregious and jury instructions cure argument.	Labrie: prosecutor misstated location/nature of semen/DNA evidence; trial court should have intervened sua sponte (plain error).	Affirmed. No plain error—misstatements not so egregious; jury instructions and overwhelming other evidence meant substantial rights were not affected.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Farrington, 161 N.H. 440 (interpretation of "seduce/solicit/lure/entice" under RSA 649‑B:4)
State v. Jennings, 159 N.H. 1 (upheld conviction under RSA 649‑B:4 despite preexisting relationship between parties)
State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237 (standard of review for legal sufficiency challenges)
State v. Lisasuain, 167 N.H. 719 (standard for upholding jury verdict on sufficiency review)
State v. Kelley, 159 N.H. 449 (consider evidence in totality, not isolation)
State v. Drown, 170 N.H. 788 (trial court not required to sua sponte interrupt counsel’s closing unless statements are patently egregious)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (confrontation rights may be waived)
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (counsel has authority to manage trial, and tactical choices can waive rights)
United States v. Soto, 799 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.) (party’s decision not to invoke a procedural right constitutes waiver)
State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331 (lawyers’ arguments are not evidence; jury presumed to follow court instructions)