State v. LaPorteState v. LaPorte
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Johnson
The defendant, Richard LaPorte, was convicted of five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, see
*75The material facts of this case are as follows. The State alleged that LaPorte sexually assaulted his stepdaughter five times during the period 1982 through 1985, when the victim was under sixteen years of age. The victim was age sixteen when she reported the offenses in January of 1986. In September 1986 and July 1987, LaPorte filed motions for discovery depositions of the victim. The State objected to these motions, citing the prohibition of such depositions set forth in
The Superior Court (Cann, J.) then granted the State’s request for the victim’s live testimony; the request stated that the victim would not be adversely affected by testifying in front of a jury. Finally, in December 1987, LaPorte subpoenaed the victim for a discovery deposition, but the Superior Court (Dunn, J.) granted the State’s motion to quash the subpoena. On appeal, LaPorte argues that his right to equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by part I, articles 2 and 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, and section one of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, was denied by the superior court’s application of
The statute at issue,
“Taking of Depositions. The respondent in a criminal case may take the discovery deposition of any person in his defense, upon giving the same notice of the caption thereof to the prosecutor that is required to be given to the adverse party in a civil case. Any discovery deposition so taken may be used on the trial of the case whenever, in the discretion of court, the use thereof shall be deemed necessary for the promotion of justice. Notwithstanding this section, no party in a criminal case in which the victim, at the time of the alleged offense, was under 16 years of age shall take the discovery deposition of the victim or any witness who was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.”
(Emphasis added.)
In State v. Heath, 129 N.H. 102, 110, 523 A.2d 82, 87-88 (1986), this statute survived an equal protection challenge, and the State argues that our holding in that case should bind our determination here. In Heath, however, the question was whether the application of the statute “create[d] an impermissible classification by limiting the discovery deposition rights of defendants accused of crimes against *76victims under sixteen.” Id. at 110, 523 A.2d at 87 (emphasis added). The victim‘in that case was under sixteen years old both at the time of the alleged offense and at the time of the deposition request, and thus the challenge was simply to the different treatment of children and adult victims. In contrast, the victim here was under sixteen years old at the time of the alleged offenses, but over sixteen at the time the depositions were requested. Because the facts of this case are significantly different from the facts of Heath, our holding in Heath is not binding on us here.
The doctrine of equal protection demands that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike,” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985), and therefore “[t]he first question in an equal protection analysis is whether the State action in question treats similarly situated persons differently.” Appeal of Marmac, 130 N.H. 53, 58, 534 A.2d 710, 713 (1987). We find that LaPorte meets this preliminary test. LaPorte belongs to a class of similarly situated defendants accused of sexual assault. The statute at issue in effect divides this class into two subclasses. The first consists of defendants accused of assaulting victims who are children both at the time of the alleged assault and at the time of deposition request. The second subclass, of which LaPorte is a member, consists of defendants who are accused of assaulting victims who are under age sixteen at the time of the alleged assault, but who are over age sixteen at the time of deposition request. See
The question then becomes whether this classification is permissible under the State and Federal Constitutions. Where, as here, the classification does not affect a fundamental right or classify on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, national origin, or legitimacy, the “legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by thevstatute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440; accord Heath, 129 N.H. at 110, 523 A.2d at 88.
There is no doubt that the legislature had a legitimate State interest in enacting
“The select committee found a compelling need for fundamental change in the way our system treats child victims. We found that some cases are dropped and some are never brought forward because of the hardship now experienced *77by child victims. Currently, children go through the same system as if they are adults. The first three sections of SB 2 are designed to reduce the trauma experienced by child victims during the judicial process. Discovery depositions in criminal cases involving witnesses under the age of 16 are eliminated. The testimony we have heard from parents and child advocates indicated that discovery depositions were often the most difficult of the court process for child victims because at such depositions, questioning was conducted without a jury present.”
N.H.S. JOUR. 569-70 (1985). As we stated in Heath, “the legislature could reasonably have found that repetitive subjection to interrogation without judicial supervision is so disturbing to young victims and witnesses as to threaten effective prosecution of the cases in question.” Heath, 129 N.H. at 110, 523 A.2d at 88.
Although the State has shown that
Under present law, the State may prosecute someone for sexually assaulting a child if the prosecution begins before the victim reaches the age of forty. Laws 1990, 213:2. The statute would prohibit the discovery deposition of a child victim, long since an adult, under the guise of protecting children. Further, a child assaulted at age sixteen and deposed the same year would likely be just as harmed by the discovery process as another victim who was deposed at age sixteen, but who had been assaulted at age fourteen. Under
The State argues that it is nonetheless permissible to classify defendants based on the age of their alleged victims at the time of the alleged assault, instead of at the time of the deposition, because to do otherwise would encourage a defendant to delay trial until a victim is sixteen years old. For example, the State argues, a victim who reports an assault when he or she is thirteen might lose the protection *78of the statute if the defendant delays the discovery process until the victim reaches age sixteen. We reject this argument because, as stated above,
Although we hold that
We note that the current version of the statute,
Reversed and remanded.
All concurred.