State v. Willey
163 N.H. 532
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Willey was convicted after a jury trial of one count of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:2, III (2007).
- The abuse involved J.H., his daughter, who was fifteen when the assaults began in 1999 and occurred two to three times weekly through 2000.
- J.H. reported the abuse to family members; at various times she recanted under police and DCYF interviews before trial, and later testified about the recantations and subsequent abuse by family members.
- A recording and Miranda waiver occurred during police interrogation; Willey later denied the allegations at trial.
- At sentencing, the State urged a lengthy term based on lack of remorse and denial, while Willey objected that the State relied on his trial rights and post-offense conduct; the court imposed a sentence of eight to twenty years.
- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial testimony merits a mistrial or stronger curative instructions | Willey argues Berube’s testimony was highly prejudicial and uncurable | State contends curative instruction sufficed and mistrial not warranted | No reversible error; mistrial not required; curative instruction adequate |
| Whether the sentence improperly relied on improper factors | Willey claims the court punished him for trial rights and lack of remorse | State contends lack of remorse and trial conduct are proper sentencing factors | Sentence vacated and remanded due to potential improper factors; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the court erred in considering the defendant’s trial tactics as an aggravating factor | Willey argues the court impermissibly punished trial strategy | State contends consideration of defendant’s conduct and false testimony was proper | Remand for resentencing due to possible improper consideration of defense strategy |
| Whether the court could consider defendant’s lack of remorse given Burgess rule | Willey maintains Burgess prohibits considering silence or lack of remorse at sentencing | State argues lack of remorse evidenced by false testimony is permissible | Remand; Burgess applied to silence, but court’s remarks suggested possible lack of remorse factor |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellsworth, 151 N.H. 152, 855 A.2d 474 (N.H. 2004) (prejudice and mistrial standard; court’s discretion in remedies)
- State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 742 A.2d 527 (N.H. 1999) (mistrial factors; prejudice analysis in improper-comment cases)
- State v. Burgess, 156 N.H. 746, 943 A.2d 727 (N.H. 2008) (sentencing may not rely on defendant’s silence or lack of remorse; perjury considerations allowed for rehabilitation)
- Grayson v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 98 S. Ct. 2610 (S. Ct. 1978) (permits consideration of false testimony at sentencing as to rehabilitation)
- Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 113 S. Ct. 1111 (S. Ct. 1993) (perjury and sentencing considerations in evaluating defendant's credibility)
- Gribble, 248 Wis. 2d 409, 636 N.W.2d 488 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (sentencing for defense strategy; contrast with NH approach)