Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Hillsborough-northern judicial district No. 2007-554 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. JOSEPH PANARELLO Argued: March 27, 2008 Opinion Issued: April 22, 2008 Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State. Sisti Law Offices, of Chichester (Mark L. Sisti on the brief and orally), for the defendant. GALWAY, J. The State appeals the order of the Superior Court (Barry, J.) granting the motion to suppress filed by the defendant, Joseph Panarello. We affirm and remand. The record supports the following facts. In May 2006, the defendant was the supervisor of the Belknap County House of Corrections. On May 15, 2006, he called in sick to work. When he failed to report to work the next day, his employer contacted the Hillsborough Police Department and requested that an officer perform a "welfare check" on the defendant at his Hillsborough home.

Hillsborough Police Officer Amy Collins subsequently arrived at the defendant's home. Seeing his truck outside, the officer knocked on three doors of the residence and looked into several windows. Although she saw lights on in the home, she did not see the defendant, and no one responded to her knocking. Officer Collins attempted to contact the defendant by phone, but to no avail. She returned to the police station and checked with dispatch, which had not received any further information. Officer Collins later returned to the defendant's home. By stepping sideways through a fence opening, she accessed a fourth door, which was closed but unlocked. She entered the defendant's home, loudly announcing that she was Officer Collins of the Hillsborough Police Department. As she walked further into the home, she continued to identify herself and said that she was at the home to check on the defendant. Upon hearing movement upstairs, she again announced her presence. When she looked up, she saw the defendant descending the stairs. When he was at the bottom of the steps and had turned around to look at her, Officer Collins "hollered to him: [`]Mr. Panarello, it's the Hillsborough Police. . . . [A]re you all right?[']" The defendant then allegedly pointed a gun at her. To get out of the line of fire, Officer Collins dove through the door to the outside. A search warrant was subsequently obtained based upon Officer Collins' observations in the home. The defendant was eventually charged with one count of criminal threatening, see RSA 631:4 (2007), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, see RSA 318-B:2 (2004). Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress "any and all physical or testimonial evidence obtained as a result of Officer Collins' entry into his home." He argued that the officer's entry violated Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution. Although the State argued that Officer Collins' initial warrantless entry into the defendant's home was lawful under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, the trial court disagreed and granted the defendant's motion to suppress. The State filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed. Our review of the trial court's order on a motion to suppress is de novo, except as to any controlling facts determined at the trial court level in the first instance. State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H. 673, 676 (2005). The State does not challenge the trial court's determination that Officer Collins' warrantless entry into the defendant's home was unlawful. Rather, the State argues that the trial court erred by suppressing "evidence that the defendant criminally threatened Officer Collins by pointing a gun at her." The State concedes that it did not present this argument to the trial court, but

2

argues that we may reverse the trial court, nonetheless, under our plain error rule. See Sup. Ct. R. 16-A. Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court. See State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417 (2007). The preservation requirement recognizes that ordinarily, trial courts should have an opportunity to rule upon issues and correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court. Id. The plain error rule allows us to exercise our discretion to correct errors not raised in the trial court. See Sup. Ct. R. 16-A. Before we may do so: "(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; [and] (3) the error must affect substantial rights." State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 303 (2007) (quotation omitted). If all three of these conditions are met, we may then exercise our discretion to correct a forfeited error, only if a fourth criterion is met: "the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id.; see Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997). We use this rule sparingly, limiting it to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266 (2006). We look to the federal courts' application of the federal plain error rule to inform our application of the state rule. State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423 (2007). On the first criterion, the State argues that the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the defendant criminally threatened Officer Collins as the fruit of the illegal entry. The State contends that evidence that the defendant pointed a gun at Officer Collins is evidence of a new crime that does not fall under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. "The `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine requires the exclusion from trial of evidence derivatively obtained through a violation of Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution." State v. Cobb, 143 N.H. 638, 650 (1999) (quotation omitted). If the evidence in question has been obtained only through the exploitation of an antecedent illegality, it must be suppressed. Id. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is three-fold. State v. Beauchesne, 151 N.H. 803, 818 (2005). It serves to: (1) deter police misconduct; (2) redress the injury to the privacy of the victim of the unlawful police conduct; and (3) safeguard compliance with State constitutional protections. See id. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule. See id. at 817. For instance, evidence will not be excluded "if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805 (1984) (quotation omitted). In such cases, the question to be resolved is "whether,

3

granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963); Cobb, 143 N.H. at 650. We have not heretofore decided under the New Hampshire Constitution "whether a new crime committed in response to an unlawful police entry into one's residence is attenuated sufficiently to break the chain of causation from the unlawful entry." State v. Brocuglio, 826 A.2d 145, 151 (Conn. 2003). Courts in other jurisdictions, however, have considered and adopted a new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. See id. at 152 (citing cases). Under this exception, where the response to an unlawful entry, search or seizure "has been a physical attack (or threat of same) upon the officer . . . , courts have . . . held that the evidence of this new crime is admissible." 3 W. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure

Download 2007-554, STATE OF NH v. JOSEPH PANARELLO.pdf

New Hampshire Law