THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT No. 2008 ...
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT No. 2008-0945
State of New Hampshire
v.
Michael Addison (Capital Murder)
Appeal Pursuant to Rule 7 from Judgment of the Hillsborough County Superior Court/North
BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT Volume 1: Questions Presented, Statements of the Case and Facts,
Summary of the Argument
David M. Rothstein Deputy Chief Appellate Defender NH Bar #: 5991 Christopher M. Johnson Chief Appellate Defender NH Bar #15149 Richard C. Guerriero New Hampshire Public Defender NH Bar #10530 Heather S. Ward New Hampshire Public Defender NH Bar #17661 NH Appellate Defender Program 2 White Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 228-9218 (Oral Argument Requested)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ix
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
10
STATEMENT OF FACTS
16
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
83
ARGUMENTS
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING ADDISON'S
MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE, BECAUSE ALLOWING
THE STATE TO TRY HIM FOR THE MURDER OF A
MANCHESTER POLICE OFFICER BEFORE JURORS DRAWN
FROM MANCHESTER AND ITS SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
90
A. Introduction
90
B. Addison's Motions for Change of Venue
95
C. Basic Constitutional Principles
96
D. The Pretrial Publicity
99
E. Jury Selection
104
1. Case-specific cause dismissals
105
2. Publicity
106
3. Positive remembrances of Officer Briggs
107
4. Negative comments about Addison
107
F. Inherent Prejudice
108
G. Effect of Publicity on the Venire
114
H. The State Exploited the Trial Court's Venue Ruling
117
i
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE
PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES
121
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING ADDISON'S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR CAUSE PROSPECTIVE JURORS
A-8 AND B-15
133
A. The Legal Principles Governing Eligibility to Serve as a
Capital Sentencing Juror
134
B. The Trial Court's Error in Qualifying Two Prospective
Jurors Requires Reversal of the Death Sentence
143
1. Juror B-15
143
2. Juror A-8
151
3. The erroneous rulings require reversal
155
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE STATE
TO ADMIT, AT THE GUILT PHASE, DETAILS OF THE
CRIMES UNDERLYING ADDISON'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS
158
A. The Other Crimes Evidence
158
B. Rule 404fb): Necessity and Scope
165
C. The 7-Eleven Video and Birely Gun Evidence
173
D. Conclusion
174
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE
STANDARD REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION THAT
FAVORED THE PROSECUTION AND REDUCED ITS
BURDEN OF PROOF
176
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BARRING THE DEFENSE
FROM INTRODUCING ADDISON'S STATEMENT TO THE
MANCHESTER POLICE IN THE TRIAL'S DEATH ELIGIBILITY
AND SENTENCE SELECTION PHASES
186
A. The Ruling Violated RSA 630:5, III
191
B. The Trial Court's Assertion of the Power to Exclude
Evidence It Found Not Credible Violated the State and
Federal Constitutions
197
ii
C. The Court Erred in Finding the Evidence Not Reliable
202
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT NEW
HAMPSHIRE LAW AUTHORIZES VICTIM IMPACT
EVIDENCE, AND IN RULING THAT THE EVIDENCE
ADMITTED DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS
PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
205
A. Payne v. Tennessee
205
B.. Victim Impact Evidence is Inadmissible Absent Statutory
Authority
206?
C. The Victim Impact Evidence Exceeded the Scope of What
Was Necessary to Afford the Jury a "Quick Glimpse" of
Briggs's Life and the Harm to his Family
209
1. Summary of the victim impact evidence
210
i. Laura Briggs
211
ii. Melissa Briggs
211
111. Mary Ann Briggs
212
IV. Leland Briggs
212
2. The applicability of RSA 630:5, III
213
3. State and Federal Constitutional principles
214
4. Application of the admissibility factors
221
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO
ADMIT IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF GENERAL PRISON
CONDITIONS
226
A. The Prison Conditions Evidence
227
B. Other References to Prison Conditions Evidence
230
C. Legal Principles
231
D. Cases Addressing General Prison Conditions Evidence
234
1. Permissible use of confinement evidence to show
adjustment to prison life
234
111
2. Impermissible use of evidence of general prison
conditions
237
E. The Trial Court Erroneously Admitted Evidence of
General Prison Conditions
242
IX. IF THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF
GENERAL PRISON CONDITIONS FOR A LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE INMATE, IT ERRED IN DENYING ADDISON'S
REQUEST TO INFORM THE JURY OF THE MODE OF HIS
EXECUTION
245
X. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE STATE
TO CALL EIGHTEEN WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ABOUT
ADDISON'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS AT SENTENCING,
BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER
RSA 630:5, III, AND ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
CLAUSES
249
A. The State's Introduction of Evidence of Addison's Other
Crimes at Sentencing
249
B. Addison's Objections to the Other Crimes Evidence
25 i
C. The Trial Court Erred in Admitting Detailed Evidence of
the Crimes Underlying Addison's Prior Convictions at
Sentencing
255
1. New Hampshire law
256
2. Out-of-state cases
257
D. The Other Crimes Evidence Was Prejudicial
263
XI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO
ADMIT SENTENCING PHASE TESTIMONY THAT ADDISON
POSSESSED A GUN AT 267 CENTRAL STREET, WHERE
THE ALLEGATION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATE'S
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY
269
XII. THE PROSECUTION'S IMPERMISSIBLE SENTENCE
SELECTION PHASE CLOSING ARGUMENT REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE DEATH SENTENCE
275
A. Due Process Bars Argument Amounting to Comment on
General Deterrence
281
IV
B. The Prosecution's Comment on Addison's Assertion of
His Constitutional Rights Warranted a Mistrial
288
C. In Two Respects, the Prosecutor's Arguments Require
Reversal as Plain Error
296
1. The prosecutor misused victim impact evidence
296
2. The prosecutor improperly minimized the
seriousness of the sentence of life imprisonment
without parole
299
3. The arguments require reversal on plain error
review
301
D. The Cumulative Effect of Prosecutorial Misconduct in
Closing Argument Requires ReversaL
304
XIII. THE CAPITAL SENTENCING STATUTE VIOLATES DUE
PROCESS BY EXCLUDING FROM THE WEIGHING
PROCESS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PROVEN BY
A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND BY NOT
REQUIRING THAT JURORS BE CONVINCED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT BEFORE THEY IMPOSE A DEATH
SENTENCE
307
A. The Capital Sentencing Statute Violates Due Process by
Preventing Jurors from Weighing Mitigating
Circumstances which are Not Proven by a Preponderance
of the Evidence
309
1. Due process generally
310
2. No litigant has a greater interest in due process
than a capital defendant in a sentence selection
hearing
311
3. The preponderance standard for mitigating factors
unnecessarily increases the risk of error by
excluding important evidence from the weighing
process
312
a. Preponderance is Not the Lowest Standard
312
b. The Preponderance Standard Prevents Jurors
from Considering Important Mitigating
Evidence
315
v
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- blindspot episode guide
- untitled council for british archaeology
- hutson thomas r association for diplomatic studies and training
- dorico 2 1 detailed feature list steinberg
- chicago pd episode guide
- the auxilia in roman britain and the two germanies from tspace
- the state of new hampshire supreme court no 2008
Related searches
- state of new jersey department of treasury
- new york supreme court reporters
- state of new jersey department of education
- state of new hampshire department of education
- state of new hampshire license
- state of new york department of insurance
- state of new jersey sec of state
- state of new jersey department of labor
- state of new jersey certificate of formation
- state of new hampshire dept of education
- new york supreme court case search
- new york supreme court cases online search