State v. Ploof, 162 N.H. 609

Defendant William Ploof pleaded guilty in 1998 to aggravated felonious sexual assault and sexual assault, receiving concurrent prison terms of 4–10 years and 12 months in confinement.
As his release approached in 2007, Hillsborough County initiated RSA 135-E proceedings for involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator.
A multidisciplinary team conducted an evaluation and found Ploof to be a sexually violent predator, prompting a petition for commitment.
Ploof unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the petition and to challenge RSA 135-E:10 and related provisions as unconstitutional, and the trial court denied those motions.
After a seven-day trial, the jury unanimously found Ploof to be a sexually violent predator, and the court ordered commitment for five years.
Ploof appealed, challenging procedural protections and the statute's constitutionality; the court affirmed the commitment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to RSA 135-E under due process and state Constitution	Ploof contends RSA 135-E violates due process and equal protection	State argues statute is constitutional with safeguards	Statute facially constitutional

Due process: admissibility framework under RSA 135-E:10	RSA 135-E:10 abolishes rules of evidence without substitutes	Statute provides trustworthiness/relevance safeguards	Adequate due process safeguards; admissibility framework satisfactory
Burden of proof for commitment (RSA 135-E:11)	State need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt	Clear and convincing standard appropriate per Addington and Sanborn	Clear and convincing standard complies with due process
Separation of powers (RSA 135-E:10)	Eliminating evidence rules usurps the judiciary	Statute creates exception under Rule of Evidence 1101(b); non-conflicting	No separation-of-powers violation
Equal protection (RSA chapter 135-E vs. 135-C/171-B)	Different procedures denied to comparable civilly committed individuals	Rational basis; sexually violent predators are not similarly situated; safeguards justify difference	Constitutional under equal protection (rational basis)

State v. Furgal, 161 N.H. 206 (2010) (facial challenge standard; heavy burden to show no valid application)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (principles for constitutional challenges in NH)
In re Eduardo L., 136 N.H. 678 (1993) (due process in non-criminal proceedings requires notice, hearing, counsel, trustworthiness)
In re Sanborn, 130 N.H. 430 (1988) (due process considerations in commitment context; amendments impact burden of proof)
State v. Hynes, 159 N.H. 187 (2009) (statutory interpretation and constitutional alignment)
Bd. of Trustees, N.H. Judicial Ret. Plan v. Sec’y of State, 161 N.H. 49 (2010) (issues of constitutional presumptions in statutory interpretation)
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 ((Ariz. Ct. App.)) (rational basis handling in equal protection challenges (cited for approach))
Grindle v. Miller, 119 N.H. 214 (1979) (distinguishing prior Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act; limited relevance)