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 ___________________________ Franklin District Court No. 2008-033 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. GLADYS DURGIN Argued: October 15, 2008 Opinion Issued: November 6, 2008 Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Stephen D. Fuller, senior assistant attorney general, on the memorandum of law, and Susan P. McGinnis, senior assistant attorney general, orally), for the State. Pizzimenti & Immen, of Concord (Dennis Pizzimenti on the brief and orally), for the defendant. DALIANIS, J. The defendant, Gladys Durgin, appeals her conviction following a bench trial in Franklin District Court (Gordon, J.) for hindering apprehension or prosecution by harboring or concealing another. See RSA 642:3, I(a) (2007). She argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict her because lying to the police about the whereabouts of her daughter did not constitute harboring or concealing another within the meaning of RSA 642:3, I(a). We reverse. The following is undisputed. In August 2007, three members of the Webster Police Department went to the defendant's home with an arrest

warrant for her daughter. When the officers informed the defendant that they had a warrant for her daughter's arrest, she denied that her daughter was there. One of the officers asked if he could check inside the home; the defendant said that she would not allow this absent a search warrant. The police left shortly thereafter. The defendant's daughter was, in fact, in the defendant's home at the time. Less than an hour after the police left, the defendant, her daughter and her son-in-law went to the Webster police station, where the daughter was arrested. The sole issue for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of harboring and concealing her daughter. To prevail upon her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003). RSA 642:3, I(a) provides: "A person is guilty of an offense if, with a purpose to hinder, prevent or delay the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he: (a) Harbors or conceals the other." The phrase "harbors or conceals" is not defined. The defendant argues that, as a matter of law, she did not harbor or conceal her daughter by lying to the police about the daughter's whereabouts. The State counters that, while the defendant "had no obligation to volunteer information to the police unbidden . . . [or] to answer the officers' questions or allow them to enter without a warrant, . . . [her] outright lie" was sufficient to convict her of "habor[ing] or conceal[ing]" her daughter. Thus, the issue, as framed by the parties, is whether lying to the police, without more, constitutes "harboring or concealing" within the meaning of RSA 642:3, I(a). New Hampshire's "Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution" statute derives from section 242.3 of the Model Penal Code. State v. Brown, 155 N.H. 164, 166 (2007); see Model Penal Code

Download 2008-033, STATE of NH v. GLADYS DURGIN.pdf

New Hampshire Law