Argued: May 8, 2019
Gordon
J. MacDonald, attorney general (Susan P. McGinnis, senior
assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the
State.
Eric
S. Wolpin, assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the
brief, and Anthony Naro, public defender, orally, for the
defendant.
BASSETT, J.
The
defendant, David Vincelette, appeals a decision of the
Superior Court (Bornstein, J.)[1] finding that he
committed criminal contempt by violating a January 2016 trial
court order that prohibited him from interfering with the
Town of Hanover's efforts to remove debris from a right
of way and Town-owned nature preserve. The defendant argues
that "[t]he court erred by finding that the State
presented sufficient evidence that [he] intentionally
violated the court's order." We affirm.
The
pertinent facts are as follows. The Town-owned nature
preserve is accessed by a deeded right of way that crosses
land where the defendant resides. In May 2015, the trial
court found that the defendant had "placed numerous
objects," including wood pallets, abandoned vehicles,
boats, and appliances on the nature preserve and on the right
of way such that the right of way was "narrow[ed] . . .
to such a width that it is difficult for a vehicle to access
the [T]own's property." The trial court ordered the
defendant to remove the debris by June 1, 2015.
In
September 2015, the trial court found the defendant in civil
contempt of court for violating the May order, and again
ordered him to remove the debris from the right of way and
nature preserve. In October 2015, when the defendant had
failed to comply with the September order, the trial court
found the defendant in civil contempt for a second time. The
trial court ordered him "to immediately cease
interfering with the [Town's] exercise of its rights to
remove the defendant's materials from the right of way
and the [Town's] property," and provided that
"[t]he [Town] may resume removing the defendant's
debris."
In
November 2015, the defendant parked his pickup truck across
the right of way, which blocked the Town's access to the
right of way and the nature preserve. The Town filed a third
motion for contempt and the court held a hearing in January
2016. After the hearing, the trial court issued yet another
order in which it concluded that the defendant's November
2015 conduct "was in violation of the October 29, 2015
order." Although the court declined to find the
defendant in contempt because the defendant had moved his
truck after 10-15 minutes, it ordered the defendant "to
immediately cease interfering with the [Town's] exercise
of its rights to remove the defendant's [debris] from the
right of way and the [Town's] property."
In May
2016, employees of the Hanover Department of Public Works,
accompanied by members of the Grafton County Sheriff's
Department, went to the right of way with heavy equipment
intending to remove the debris from the right of way and the
nature preserve. When they entered the right of way, they
encountered the defendant and a confrontation ensued, much of
which was recorded by the police in a forty-five minute
video. Lieutenant Kelly, from the Sheriff's Department,
gave the defendant a copy of the January 2016 court order and
read portions of it aloud. The defendant responded that the
Town could not use vehicles to remove the debris. He asserted
that, although the deed creating the right of way allowed him
to drive his personal vehicle on the right of way, the Town
was allowed to drive vehicles on the right of way solely for
maintenance or emergencies. The defendant stood in close
proximity to the Town employees while yelling and swearing at
them, told them that they would be held liable for engaging
in illegal activity, declared that they could not use
vehicles to remove the debris, and repeatedly ordered them to
leave. For approximately five minutes, the defendant sat on,
or stood near, the wood pallets that the trial court had
previously decreed the Town had a right to remove. He also
made repeated physical contact with a Town employee, after
which Kelly positioned himself between the defendant and the
employee. At one point the defendant approached a moving dump
truck while shouting, "no, no, no, no trucks down here .
. . hey stop." On multiple occasions, the
defendant's close proximity to the Town's vehicles
caused the Town employees to stop working. The Town employees
and law enforcement officers ultimately decided to leave
after the defendant repeatedly said that he was not going to
allow them to remove the debris.
In
September 2016, after the Town had filed another motion for
contempt, the trial court held another hearing. The trial
court found the defendant in civil contempt of court for a
third time, and referred the case to the Grafton County
Attorney's Office. The defendant was charged with
criminal contempt for violating the January 2016 order. The
State alleged that, on May 16, 2016, the defendant committed
six acts which interfered with the Town's removal of the
defendant's debris from the right of way and the nature
preserve. Five acts involved the defendant's statements
and one involved the defendant's physical acts. The State
alleged that the defendant physically interfered with the
Town's actions by "[c]reating a dangerous situation
by walking up to and/or behind and/or in between the heavy
machinery brought by Town of Hanover employees."
The
trial court conducted a two-day bench trial that concluded in
December 2017. The Operations Manager for the Town of Hanover
Department of Public Works testified that the defendant, in
response to the Town's attempts to remove the debris, was
"very aggressive," moved within five feet of the
heavy equipment, and made the situation "unstable"
and "not . . . safe." Kelly testified that the
defendant had yelled and cursed, and "walk[ed] in
between the heavy equipment" which "stopped what
was going on because [Town employees] were concerned about
the safety risk of him, not knowing where he is and how he
was acting." Kelly also testified that the
defendant's "attitude and his mannerisms were
escalating; they weren't de-escalating, they were
escalating. And we made a decision where it was the safety of
everybody to withdraw from the area and come back at another
day." The defendant introduced into evidence the
forty-five minute police video of his interactions with Town
employees and law enforcement.
In
January 2018, the trial court issued an order concluding that
"[t]he evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant intentionally committed each of the
charged acts in violation of the Order and that he acted
purposely." The trial court found the defendant guilty
of criminal contempt, noting that it "was able to
observe the defendant's conduct, speech, tone of voice,
manner, and demeanor" from the video. The trial court
also concluded that none of the charged conduct was protected
speech under either the Federal or State Constitutions. The
trial court imposed a four-month sentence. It suspended, for
two years, all but the eight days that the defendant had
already served, on the condition that he remain of good
behavior and continue treatment through the U.S. Department
of Veteran's Affairs. The trial court denied the
defendant's motion to reconsider, and this appeal
followed.
On
appeal, the defendant argues that the State introduced
insufficient evidence to prove that, on May 16, 2016, he
violated the January 2016 order, and that he acted with the
requisite intent. A challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence raises a claim of legal error; therefore, our
standard of review is de novo. State v.
Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 718 (2017). To prevail upon a
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. Id.
A
defendant's intent often must be proved by circumstantial
evidence and may be inferred from the defendant's conduct
under all the circumstances. State v. Zubhuza, 166
N.H. 125, 130 (2014). When the evidence as to an element of
proof is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all
reasonable conclusions except guilt. See Morrill,
169 N.H. at 718-19. However, the proper analysis is not
whether every possible conclusion consistent with innocence
has been excluded, but, rather, whether all reasonable
conclusions based upon the evidence have been excluded.
State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013),
modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H.
340, 345 (2015). We do not review each circumstance proved in
isolation or break the evidence into discrete pieces in an
effort to establish that, when viewed in isolation, these
evidentiary fragments ...