A.A. v. N.R. ( 2024 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2024-0117, A.A. v. N.R., the court on October 7,
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, N.R., appeals a civil stalking final order of
protection issued in favor of the plaintiff, A.A., following an evidentiary hearing.
See RSA 633:3-a, III-a (Supp. 2023). He argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that he engaged in a course of
conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal
safety or the safety of a member of the person’s immediate family, and that the
plaintiff was, in fact, placed in such fear. See RSA 633:3-a, I(a) (Supp. 2023).
We affirm.
Stalking is defined to include “[p]urposely, knowingly, or recklessly
engag[ing] in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would
cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of
a member of that person’s immediate family, and the person is actually placed
in such fear.” Id. “‘Course of conduct’ means 2 or more acts over a period of
time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose,” and may
include “[a]ny act of communication, as defined in RSA 644:4, II.” RSA 633:3-
a, II(a)(7) (Supp. 2023). RSA 644:4, (Supp. 2023), in turn, makes it unlawful to
“[m]ake[] repeated communications,” meaning, to repeatedly “impart a message
by any method of transmission,” “in offensively coarse language with a purpose
to annoy or alarm another,” or to “[i]nsult[], taunt[], or challenge[] another in a
manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.” RSA 644:4, I(b)-(c),
II (Supp. 2023).
The trial court’s “findings of facts shall be final, but questions of law may
be transferred from the circuit court to the supreme court.” RSA 173-B:3, VI
(2022); see RSA 633:3-a, III-a (providing that, in civil stalking proceedings, “the
procedures and burdens of proof to be applied . . . shall be the same as those
set forth in RSA 173-B”). We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a
matter of law and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they
lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law. Despres v. Hampsey,
162 N.H. 398, 401 (2011). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, deferring to the trial court’s evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility,
id. at 401, 404, recognizing that the trial court has the benefit of observing the
demeanor of the witnesses first-hand, see State v. Giles, 140 N.H. 714, 718-19
(1996) (“We defer to the jury’s findings on credibility in part because a trial
transcript provides no indication of a witness’s tone of voice or demeanor, two
useful tools in the assessment of credibility.”).
In this case, the trial court found that the defendant purposely,
knowingly, or recklessly engaged in a course of conduct targeted at the plaintiff
when he passed in front of the plaintiff’s home and yelled threatening
obscenities on at least eleven occasions within the span of a month, and that
such conduct caused the plaintiff to fear for his safety and triggered law
enforcement involvement. Viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff,
see Despres, 162 N.H. at 401, we conclude that it supports the trial court’s
findings that the defendant’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear
for his or her personal safety or the safety of the person’s immediate family,
and that the plaintiff was placed in such fear.
Affirmed.
MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett and Donovan, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk
2