State v. Thompson, 58 A.3d 661

Defendant Daniel C. Thompson was convicted of DWI after a bench trial in Lebanon District Court.
State’s complaint alleged two prior DWI convictions, but the State did not introduce those convictions in its case-in-chief.
Trial court found Thompson guilty of DWI and sentenced him with enhanced penalties under RSA 265-A:18, IV(b).
At sentencing, the State sought to admit evidence of the two prior convictions over Thompson’s objection.
Thompson argued RSA 265-A:18, IV requires proof of prior convictions in the State’s case-in-chief.
The court overruled the objection and sentenced Thompson under the enhanced penalties statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 265-A:18, IV requires proof of prior convictions in the State’s case-in-chief.	State contends the statute does not require case-in-chief proof since prior convictions are sentencing factors.	Thompson contends the State must prove prior convictions in its case-in-chief due to the complaint’s allegation of prior convictions.	RSA 265-A:18, IV does not require case-in-chief proof of prior convictions.

State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (statutory interpretation and de novo review of legislative intent)
State v. Langill, 157 N.H. 77 (2008) (plain meaning and interpretation of statutes as written)
State v. McLellan, 146 N.H. 108 (2001) (prior convictions as sentencing factors, not elements)
Cardin v. Cardin, 129 N.H. 137 (1987) (prior convictions may be alleged but need not be proven in all contexts)
State v. LeBaron, 148 N.H. 226 (2002) (overruled Doucet; prior convictions as sentencing factors; jury proof not required for all enhancements)
State v. Lougee, 137 N.H. 635 (1993) (prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt when not clearly waived, under older framework)
State v. Doucet, 106 N.H. 225 (1965) (former rule requiring allegation and proof of prior convictions (overruled))