State of New Hampshire v. Christopher C. Derrico ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                     THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    SUPREME COURT
    In Case No. 2023-0271, State of New Hampshire v.
    Christopher C. Derrico, the court on July 1, 2024, issued the
    following order:
    The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
    on appeal and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
    Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Christopher C. D’Errico, appeals his
    convictions by the Circuit Court (Stephen, J.), on charges of animal cruelty for
    leaving dogs confined in a crate within a vehicle on two separate occasions.
    See RSA 644:8 (Supp. 2023). We construe his brief to be challenging the
    sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.
    A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law
    that we review de novo. State v. Cullen, 
    175 N.H. 628
    , 630 (2023). It is the
    defendant’s burden on appeal to prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all
    the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most
    favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the charged
    offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id.
     As the trier of fact, the trial judge is
    free to accept or reject any portion of any witness’s testimony, and to resolve
    conflicts in testimony. State v. Carr, 
    167 N.H. 264
    , 275 (2015). Credibility
    determinations are within the province of the trier of fact and will be upheld
    unless no rational trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion. 
    Id.
    In this case, the trial court found that the defendant violated RSA 644:8,
    III(a) and RSA 644:8, III(h) when he left multiple dogs confined in a crate in a
    parked vehicle on two hot summer days. RSA 644:8, III(a) makes it unlawful to
    “negligently deprive[] or cause[] to be deprived any animal in [the defendant’s]
    possession or custody necessary care, sustenance or shelter.” RSA 644:8, III(h)
    makes it unlawful to “negligently permit[] or cause[] any animal in [the
    defendant’s] possession or custody to be subjected to cruelty, inhumane
    treatment, or unnecessary suffering of any kind.” To establish that the
    defendant acted with criminal negligence, the State was required to prove that
    he “fail[ed] to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the
    material element[s] [of RSA 644:8, III] exist[] or will result from his conduct,”
    and that “[t]he risk [was] of such a nature and degree that his failure to become
    aware of it constitute[d] a gross deviation from the conduct that a reasonable
    person would observe in the situation.” RSA 626, II(d) (2016). Leaving a dog
    confined in a hot vehicle may constitute criminal negligence for purposes of
    RSA 644:8, III. See State v. Butler, 
    175 N.H. 444
    , 448-49 (2022).
    Viewed most favorably to the State, see Cullen, 175 N.H. at 630, the
    evidence in this case establishes that on July 30, 2022, when the outside
    temperature was 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the defendant left three dogs in a
    single crate in the covered bed of a truck parked in the sun without adequate
    ventilation. Although the investigating officer was able to determine that the
    truck had not been parked there for long, it was much hotter inside the truck
    where the dogs were than it was outside, the three dogs were “crammed” in the
    crate in close proximity to each other, and the defendant had gone into a
    gambling establishment “for a few” and had left a note on the truck claiming
    that the dogs had water and a “mist” machine and directing anyone who had a
    concern about the dogs to call him. Although the officer elected not to arrest
    the defendant at that time, he told the defendant that it was irresponsible to
    leave the dogs in those conditions while he gambled and directed him to let the
    dogs out to “use the bathroom” and to then “head straight home” with them.
    One month later, on August 30, 2022, the defendant left two large dogs
    inside a single crate in a different parked vehicle for at least two hours with
    inadequate ventilation. It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit outside, significantly
    hotter inside the vehicle, the crate was not large enough to accommodate the
    two dogs, and the dogs were showing signs of distress. After the investigating
    officer removed the dogs from the car and brought them into an air-conditioned
    building, the dogs appeared to be “desperately thirsty” and drank water
    “desperately.” The defendant told the investigating officer that he had left the
    dogs in those conditions because they were “outdoor dogs.”
    On this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential
    elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. Although
    the defendant disputes much of the testimony of the State’s witnesses and
    questions their veracity, a rational trier of fact could have come to a different
    conclusion than the defendant in evaluating the witnesses’ credibility. See
    Carr, 
    167 N.H. at 275
    . To the extent the defendant raises additional
    arguments in his brief, the arguments are not sufficiently developed. See State
    v. Blackmer, 
    149 N.H. 47
    , 49 (2003).
    Affirmed.
    MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.
    Timothy A. Gudas,
    Clerk
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023-0271

Filed Date: 7/1/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/26/2024