From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lambert

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 17, 2001
147 N.H. 295 (N.H. 2001)

Summary

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Hayes v. Connolly

Opinion

No. 2000-599

Decided December 17, 2001

1. Criminal Law — Judgment and Sentence — Generally

Although a sentencing judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, that discretion is not unlimited.

2. Criminal Law — Judgment and Sentence — Factors for Consideration

Defendant's argument that the judge impermissibly considered unsubstantiated allegations of other crimes when sentencing him for conviction of felonious sexual assault was rejected where the judge gave no weight to exhibit offered by the State at the sentencing hearing showing that during a search of the defendant's apartment, the police obtained "bags of marijuana, grow bulbs [and] plastic bags."

Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general (Ann M. Rice, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief), for the State.

Carl D. Olson, assistant appellate defender, of Littleton, by brief, for the defendant.


The defendant, Kevin Lambert, was convicted by a jury of four counts of felonious sexual assault. See RSA 632-A:3, II (Supp. 2000). The Superior Court (Abramson, J.) sentenced him to a combined term of five to ten years in prison, and a consecutive term of three and one-half to seven years, suspended. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erroneously considered unsubstantiated allegations of other crimes when sentencing him. We affirm.

Although a sentencing judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, that discretion is not unlimited. See State v. Kimball, 140 N.H. 150, 151 (1995). "We have held that judges in sentencing should not rely upon allegations of other crimes by the defendant when such allegations are unsubstantiated, resolved by acquittals, or the product of speculation." State v. Tufts, 136 N.H. 517, 519 (1992) (quotation omitted). "If improper evidence is admitted at sentencing, the sentence imposed must be reconsidered unless the trial court clearly gave that evidence no weight." Kimball, 140 N.H. at 151.

We review a trial judge's sentencing decision under an "abuse of discretion" standard. Id. Unfortunately, appellate review based upon an "abuse of discretion" standard may be misunderstood by those not familiar with the concept of judicial discretion as misconduct by the trial judge. When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made. Cf. Bianco, P.A. v. The Home Ins. Co., 147 N.H. 249, 251 (2001).

Because the "abuse of discretion" standard may carry an inaccurate connotation, we will hereafter refer to it as the "unsustainable exercise of discretion" standard. To show that the trial court's decision is not sustainable, "the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." State v. Johnson, 145 N.H. 647, 648 (2000) (quotation omitted).

At the sentencing hearing, the State offered an exhibit showing that during a search of the defendant's apartment, the police obtained "bags of marijuana, grow bulbs [and] plastic bags." The State argued that these items showed that the defendant "was well into using marijuana" and that this "lifestyle" led him to take advantage of the victim. This exhibit was not mentioned in the Presentence Investigation Report.

The record shows that the trial court gave no weight to this exhibit, however. The court stated that it reached its sentencing decision based upon "the nature and facts of the charges, the arguments of the State, the permissible material in the Presentence Investigation Report, the input of the victim, the arguments of defense counsel, the testimony of the witnesses, and . . . the entire file." The court observed that the defendant was a thirty-five-year-old man who had used a wrong telephone number ruse to contact a fourteen-year-old girl and that, after sexually assaulting the girl, he used the same ruse to contact the girl's mother and have sexual relations with her. "Based on this," the court described the defendant as a "predator." The court then stated that it "[d]id not even have to glance" at the exhibit to find the State's recommended sentence appropriate.

Because the judge gave no weight to the exhibit, we reject the defendant's argument that the judge impermissibly considered unsubstantiated allegations of other crimes when sentencing him.

All issues raised by the defendant in his notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived. State v. Mountjoy, 142 N.H. 642, 652 (1998).

Affirmed.

BROCK, C.J., and BRODERICK and DALIANIS, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

State v. Lambert

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 17, 2001
147 N.H. 295 (N.H. 2001)

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Hayes v. Connolly

explaining that to show that the trial court's decision is not sustainable, "the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case"

Summary of this case from Macdonald v. Jacobs

explaining our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Hodges v. Johnson

explaining that we now refer to abuse of discretion standard as unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Gonzalez

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from In re Sweatt

explaining "unsustainable exercise of discretion"

Summary of this case from In re Munson

explaining our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard of review

Summary of this case from State v. Stanin

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Allen

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Eschenbrenner

explaining our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from In re Kempton

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Conant v. O'Meara

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from DuPont v. Nashua Police Dep't

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Shelton v. Tamposi

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion

Summary of this case from State v. Baker

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from In re Bordalo

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Moussa

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Alwardt

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Mentus

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from George v. Al Hoyt & Sons, Inc.

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion

Summary of this case from ATV Watch v. New Hampshire Department of Transportation

explaining the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from In the Matter of Canaway Canaway

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Laramie v. Stone

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Kelly

explaining “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard

Summary of this case from State v. Dilboy

explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard

Summary of this case from State v. Andrew Santiago
Case details for

State v. Lambert

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. KEVIN LAMBERT

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

147 N.H. 295 (N.H. 2001)
787 A.2d 175

Citing Cases

State v. Sanchez

As the trial court is in the best position to gauge any prejudicial effect the prosecutor's closing remarks…

Petition of Haines

Therefore, a trial court order compelling pre-trial discovery will not be disturbed absent an unsustainable…