State of New Hampshire v. Brian Benoit

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0091, State of New Hampshire v. Brian
Benoit, the court on February 19, 2015, issued the following
order:
Having considered the brief filed by the defendant, Brian Benoit, the
memorandum of law filed by the State, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
The defendant appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Crocker, J.), issued
following a hearing on offers of proof, that required him to make restitution to the
victim in the amount of $14,984.48 for “all uninsured medical services” provided
to her as a result of his criminal actions. We affirm.
The restitution hearing in this case followed a sentencing hearing at which
the defendant accepted a plea bargain that reduced his felony second degree
assault charge to a class A misdemeanor reckless conduct charge. The original
charge alleged that the defendant caused serious bodily injury to the victim “by
jumping on her knee, while pinning her to a couch,” resulting in a torn anterior
cruciate ligament and “causing the need for major knee surgery.” At the
sentencing hearing, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the misdemeanor
charge and was sentenced, among other things, to restitution in an amount to be
determined at a later hearing for the victim’s uninsured medical expenses
incurred as a result of the knee injury.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the State failed to provide
“competent, credible evidence” at the restitution hearing demonstrating that the
victim’s knee injury and subsequent surgery were causally connected to his
criminal offense. He also argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that
the medical expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary and that it erred
by admitting hearsay and non-admissible evidence at the hearing on offers of
proof.
As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. See Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 103 A.3d 1183, 1186
(2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the defendant’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2