Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bedell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

May 27, 2016

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
PAUL BEDELL

          Argued: January 13, 2016

          Joseph A. Foster, attorney general (Colleen Laffin, attorney, and Stephen D. Fuller, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Mr. Fuller orally), for the State.

          Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

          BASSETT, J.

         The defendant, Paul Bedell, appeals his convictions on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. See RSA 632-A:2, I(l) (2007). The defendant argues that the Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) erred when, on the second day of trial, it dismissed a juror after it erroneously concluded that the juror could no longer be impartial. We affirm because we conclude that, although error, the juror's dismissal was not prejudicial because an impartial jury ultimately rendered the verdict in the defendant's case.

         The record supports the following facts. During jury selection for the defendant's trial, the trial court asked prospective jurors the following question: "Have you or a close family member ever been accused of [sexual assault]?" The following exchange occurred between one of the prospective jurors and the trial court:

[JUROR]: You mentioned being directly connected with somebody that has been accused or convicted. . . . [M]y cousin's son [has] also been accused and is preparing to go to trial. I don't know [if] it will affect or not.
. . . .
THE COURT: So, would any of those experiences have any effect on your ability to be fair and impartial in deciding this case?
[JUROR]: No. Each one is an individual and you got to go by the evidence. I learned that a long time ago.
THE COURT: Okay. So you can be fair and impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence presented and the law as I instruct you on it?
[JUROR]: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Yes?
[JUROR]: Yes.

         The State then further ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.