154 A.3d 652
N.H.2017Background
- Defendant Remi Gross‑Santos drove early morning after attending an all‑night party; his car crossed lanes and struck two pedestrians, causing serious injuries.
- Passenger testified they smoked marijuana at school and in the car before the party; defendant admitted to drinking at the party and later told officers he had trouble staying awake.
- Officers encountered the scene, detected a slight odor of alcohol and glassy eyes, and observed the vehicle straddling lanes; defendant made inconsistent statements about his whereabouts and alcohol consumption.
- Defendant was arrested for DUI, transported for a blood draw, and police later searched his car pursuant to a warrant and found a marijuana grinder.
- At pretrial, the court permitted testimony that defendant smoked marijuana (limited to impeachment/credibility) and admitted the grinder as corroborative, with a limiting jury instruction; defendant was convicted of two counts of second‑degree assault and transporting alcohol as a minor, acquitted of aggravated DWI counts.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Gross‑Santos's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of marijuana grinder | Grinder corroborates passenger and impeaches defendant’s omission; probative for credibility | Grinder lacked probative value and was unfairly prejudicial (implied frequent use) | Trial court may have erred under Rule 403, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
| Preservation of challenge to grinder evidence | Trial record shows defendant preserved objection | State argued defendant failed to preserve specific Rule 404(b) type challenge | Court found issue preserved because trial judge addressed substance of objection |
| Harmless‑error standard for evidence admission | Other evidence of impairment overwhelming; grinder cumulative | Grinder sufficiently prejudicial to affect verdict | Error harmless under Palermo; inadmissible evidence was cumulative/inconsequential given other proof |
| Probable cause for warrantless arrest | Officer had facts (odor, glassy eyes, eyewitness report of erratic driving, vehicle position, admissions) supporting probable cause for DUI | Court improperly relied on facts not known to arresting officer (e.g., other officer’s statements) | Even viewing suppression record in State’s favor, probable cause existed to arrest for DUI; suppression ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (warrantless arrest reasonable where facts known to officer give probable cause for a crime)
- State v. Palermo, 168 N.H. 387 (State must show harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Ducharme, 167 N.H. 606 (probable cause review uses reasonable probabilities and views facts in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Tabaldi, 165 N.H. 306 (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings; reverse only if clearly untenable or unreasonable)
- State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161 (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)