State v. West, 113 A.3d 726

Background

Shortly after midnight, Officer St. Onge responded to a 9-1-1 hang-up at West’s house, knocked, identified himself, and asked to enter; West refused and closed the storm door.
As West was closing the interior door, St. Onge reached for the storm-door handle; West charged, knocked St. Onge down a flight of steps, and sat on him while punching him.
The two struggled; at one point St. Onge grabbed West by the hair and said, “If you let go of me, I’ll let go of you.” West replied “You first,” then released, and St. Onge handcuffed him.
West was convicted by a jury of three counts of simple assault and one count of resisting arrest or detention (RSA 631:2-a; RSA 642:2).
At trial West objected to the court’s jury instruction on defense of premises (RSA 627:7) and moved to dismiss the resisting-arrest charge for insufficient evidence; both rulings were denied.
On appeal West argued the jury instruction improperly required exhaustion of non-violent alternatives and that there was insufficient evidence that St. Onge was seeking to effect an arrest or detention.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (West)	Held
Whether the jury instruction on defense of premises improperly required exhaustion of non-violent alternatives	Instruction accurately paraphrased RSA 627:7 and was proper	Instruction effectively shifted burden / required exhausting non-violent remedies before using force	Court held instruction, read in entirety, correctly required a reasonable belief that force was necessary and was not erroneous; affirmed
Whether defense-of-premises instruction permitted hindsight assessment of reasonableness	Instruction properly directed jury to consider circumstances as they appeared to defendant at the time	Instruction allowed after-the-fact determination of reasonableness	Court held instruction told jurors to consider defendant’s perspective at the time, so no impermissible hindsight; affirmed
Whether evidence supported resisting arrest/detention conviction under RSA 642:2	Evidence (officer holding hair and statement refusing to let go) permitted a jury to infer officer was attempting to detain during struggle	No evidence officer was seeking to effect an arrest/detention; officer was only investigating a 9-1-1 hang-up	Majority held evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find officer was attempting to detain; affirmed conviction (partial dissent would reverse)
Whether State waived argument that instruction was unnecessary because victim was an officer	State argued no instruction needed because assault on officer; did not object at trial	Instruction was improper	Court declined to consider State’s waivered argument and reviewed instruction on merits

Key Cases Cited

State v. Haas, 134 N.H. 480 (trial court can refuse defense-of-property instruction when offense involves assault on police officer)
State v. Cheney, 165 N.H. 677 (issue preserved only if timely objection made at trial)
State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Leaf, 137 N.H. 97 (jury decides whether an honest belief was reasonable under the circumstances)
State v. Bird, 161 N.H. 31 (analysis focuses on whether it was reasonable to believe force was necessary)
State v. Leveille, 160 N.H. 630 (supervisory suggestion to use model jury instructions)
State v. Lindsey, 158 N.H. 708 (resisting-arrest conviction must rest on conduct while officer seeks to effect arrest/detention)
State v. Kelley, 153 N.H. 481 (definition of "detain" as hold or keep in custody)
State v. Fischer, 165 N.H. 706 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)