State of New Hampshire v. Michael Caterson

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case Nos. 2021-0497 and 2021-0523, State of New
Hampshire v. Michael Caterson, the court on September 21,
2023, issued the following order:
The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The
State appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Honigberg, J.) dismissing
criminal charges against the defendant, Michael Caterson. The superior court
dismissed the charges after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over them
under RSA 169-B:4, VII (2022). The State argues that the court erred when it
incorrectly interpreted RSA 169-B:4, VII by construing the statute to prohibit,
under certain circumstances, prosecution of criminal charges based on acts
that are “interrelated” with acts underlying a pending juvenile petition. The
State also asserts that, even if the court’s statutory interpretation was correct,
the court erred in how it applied its interpretation of the statute to the facts of
this case. Due to factual developments that occurred following oral argument,
we do not reach the merits of these arguments and vacate and remand.
The following brief factual background is derived from the trial court’s
orders or is otherwise supported by the record. In January 2020, when the
defendant was 17 years old, the State filed juvenile petitions in the circuit court
arising out of an incident during which the defendant possessed a firearm.
After the defendant turned 18, a grand jury indicted him on charges in
superior court arising out of an alleged robbery of firearms that predated the
defendant’s alleged firearm possession. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss, arguing that, pursuant to RSA 169-B:4, VII, the superior court lacked
jurisdiction over the criminal charges because of the juvenile petitions pending
in circuit court. The superior court granted the motion. It interpreted RSA
169-B:4, VII as depriving it of jurisdiction if a juvenile petition based on
“interrelated” acts had already been filed in the circuit court, and concluded
that, because the two incidents were “interrelated,” it lacked jurisdiction. The
State filed this appeal. The defendant filed a cross-appeal but, in his brief, he
waived the issues raised in his cross-appeal.
Following oral argument in this appeal, the State filed a notice on August
18, 2023 that the circuit court closed the juvenile matter as of June 15, 2023.
The State also filed a motion to seal its notice and related materials, which
include the circuit court case summary. The State argues that, under Petition
of Miles, 175 N.H. 405 (2022), because there is no longer a pending juvenile
proceeding involving the defendant, we should reverse the superior court’s
dismissal of the criminal charges filed against the defendant. The State also
asserts that the legal issues presented in this appeal are nevertheless not moot
because “the situation is capable of repetition yet evading review and presents
a matter of pressing and important public interest.” The defendant filed no
objection or other response to the State’s filings. We grant the State’s motion
to seal only as to the circuit court case summary and address its argument
based on Miles.
In Miles, we held that RSA 169-B:4, VII precludes the State from
criminally prosecuting individuals for acts they committed as minors “only
when those individuals are subject to ongoing juvenile proceedings.” Miles,
175 N.H. at 409. We agree with the State that, absent an ongoing juvenile
proceeding concerning the defendant, RSA 169-B:4, VII does not prohibit the
State from criminally prosecuting the defendant, nor does it divest the superior
court of jurisdiction over such criminal charges. See RSA 169-B:4, VII; Miles,
175 N.H. at 409. We therefore vacate the superior court’s dismissal of the
criminal charges.
We decline to reach the merits of the legal issues presented by this
appeal: whether the superior court erred in its interpretation of RSA 169-B:4,
VII and in its application of that interpretation to conclude that it lacked
jurisdiction over the indictments while the juvenile proceeding concerning the
defendant was ongoing. Those issues are now moot. See Miles, 175 N.H. at
409-10; In the Matter of O’Neil & O’Neil, 159 N.H. 615, 624 (2010) (“Generally a
matter is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because
issues involved have become academic or dead.” (quotation omitted)).
Additionally, we are not convinced by the State’s argument that this case
presents issues of a sufficiently pressing public interest or that are capable of
repetition yet evading review such that we should reach the merits. See Appeal
of Hinsdale Fed. of Teachers, 133 N.H. 272, 276 (1990).
Vacated and remanded.
HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk
2