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 ___________________________ Rockingham No. 2007-654 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. PUTNAM BREED Argued: May 6, 2009 Opinion Issued: July 2, 2009 Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Stephen D. Fuller, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Elizabeth C. Woodcock, attorney, orally), for the State. Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, of Concord (Michael J. Connolly and Christopher H.M. Carter on the brief, and Mr. Carter orally), for the defendant. DALIANIS, J. The defendant, Putnam Breed, appeals his convictions following a jury trial in Superior Court (Nadeau, J.) of nine counts of fraudulent handling of recordable writings, see RSA 638:2 (2007), two counts of theft by deception, see RSA 637:4 (2007), and one count of theft by unauthorized taking, see RSA 637:3 (2007). We affirm his theft by deception convictions and reverse his convictions for theft by unauthorized taking and fraudulent handling of recordable writings.

The record supports the following facts. The defendant is a medical examiner in Massachusetts. His convictions stem from medical examiner services he provided to Simplicity Burial and Cremation in Salisbury, Massachusetts, and to the Bayview Crematorium (Bayview) in Seabrook, New Hampshire, which were both owned by the same individual. See Petition of Bayview Crematory, 155 N.H. 781, 782 (2007). In July 2005, a grand jury returned nine indictments alleging that the defendant had fraudulently handled recordable writings. See RSA 638:2. The "recordable writing" at issue in each indictment was a medical certificate for cremation (cremation certificate). See RSA 325-A:3 (2004) (repealed 2006). Seven indictments alleged that the defendant, with a purpose to deceive, had signed certain cremation certificates that falsely indicated that he was a New Hampshire medical examiner. Two indictments alleged that he, with a purpose to deceive, had signed other cremation certificates indicating that he had viewed certain remains and had made personal inquiry into the cause and manner of death, when, in fact, he had not done so. In November 2006, a grand jury returned two indictments alleging that the defendant had committed theft by deception, see RSA 637:4, and one indictment alleging that he had committed theft by unauthorized taking, see RSA 637:3. The theft by unauthorized taking indictment charged the defendant with purposely submitting cremation fee forms to Bayview for authorization and forwarding to the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in connection with the cremations of twelve decedents who had died and were cremated in New Hampshire even though the defendant was not a New Hampshire-appointed medical examiner. The two theft by deception indictments alleged that, for the purpose of receiving medical examiner fees, the defendant had signed cremation certificates indicating he had viewed the remains of other decedents when he had not done so. Following a six-day trial, a jury convicted the defendant on all charges. Thereafter, he filed a motion to set aside the verdicts and for a new trial in which he argued, inter alia, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The motion was denied, and this appeal followed. I. Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writing Convictions

The defendant first argues that the fraudulent handling of recordable writing statute, RSA 638:2, is unconstitutionally vague. RSA 638:2 provides: "A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording." The defendant contends that this statute is impermissibly vague

2

because it fails to give notice that cremation certificates are "other writing[s] for which the law provides public recording." Although the defendant couches his argument in constitutional terms, in effect, he asserts that the fraudulent handling of recordable writing indictments fail to allege a crime because cremation certificates are not recordable writings within the meaning of the statute. In keeping with our practice of deciding constitutional issues only when necessary, see State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. ___, ___ (decided Apr. 19, 2009), we will address only the defendant's implied statutory claim because it provides him the relief he seeks. We review a trial court's statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Horner, 153 N.H. 306, 309 (2006). We are the final arbiters of the legislative intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596, 598 (2008). When interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Petition of State of N.H. (State v. Laporte), 157 N.H. 229, 231 (2008). We do not strictly construe criminal statutes, however, but rather construe them "according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice." RSA 625:3 (2007). In RSA 638:2, the general phrase "other writing for which the law provides public recording" follows an enumerated list that includes wills, deeds, mortgages and security instruments. The principle of ejusdem generis provides that, where specific words in a statute follow general ones, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words. State v. Meaney, 134 N.H. 741, 744 (1991). All of the enumerated documents are documents that affect property interests. The law provides for recording of these documents so as to give notice to all persons regarding the status of title to the property at issue. See 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records and Recording Laws

Download 2007-654, STATE OF NH v. PUTNAM BREED.pdf

New Hampshire Law