2004-150, STATE OF NH v. WADE HUDSON

not arrive until 1:45 p.m. Shamesman met the de fendant outside where a brief meet the defendant at the agreed - upon time of 1:00 p.m., but the defendant did home to give him an estimate for certain renovations. Shamesman left work to Shamesman arranged t o meet the defendant, a contractor, at Shamesman’s The record supports the following facts. On October 2, 2003, Scott

property of another. We affirm. is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant damaged the 634:2 (Supp. 2004) and sen tenced to pay a $200 fine. The sole issue on appeal J.), the defendant, Wade Hudson, was convicted of criminal mischief, RSA DUGGAN, J. Following a bench trial in Durham District Court (Taube,

brief), for the defendant. Law Offices o f Richard N. Foley, of Portsmouth (Richard N. Foley on the

general, on the brief), for the State. Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Philip P. Bradley, assistant attorney

No. 2004 - 150 Durham District Court

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. O pinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

reasonable basis for belief of having such a right, purposely or recklessly person is guilty of criminal mischief who, having no right to do so nor any The general definition of criminal mischief in RSA 634: p. 2 2, I, states: “A

N.H. 8 p. 2 2, 84 (2004). the trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. Hutchins v. Peabody, 1 51 RSA 625:3 (1996); see State v. Nelson, 150 N.H. 569, 572 (2004). We review provisions “according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice.” unambiguous, we need not look beyond it. Id. We co nstrue Criminal Code Newmarket, 150 N.H. 804, 806 (2004). When a statute’s language is plain and examine the language of the statute. Blackthorne Group v. Pines of to prove the required e lements. In matters of statutory interpretation, we first statute and then to decide whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient Resolution of the issue requires us to interpret the criminal mischief

agree. an other, and that the evidence was sufficient to support that element. We did not have to prove pecuniary loss, but merely damage to the property of The State argues that under the relevant variant of criminal mischief, it

pecuniary loss. value,” RSA 637: p. 2 2, I (1996), to argue that the State was required to prove relies upon the statutory definition of property, which means “anything of prove that “anything of value” was damaged by him. Specifically, the defendant On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to

with the criminal mischief complaint. have been Shamesman who caused the damage. Officer Lyczak then proceeded was not going to apologize, that he did not cause the damage and that it could Shamesman was “willing to let things go,” the defendant started yelling that he Shamesman’s concern. When he told the defendant that if he apologized, afternoon, Officer Lyczak telephoned the defendant and explained ask the defendant to apologize. Shamesman chose the latter. That same been “r un over.” Officer Lyczak said that he could either issue a summons or the other side of the driveway and one small recently - planted shrub that had spin - out mark on one side of the driveway, a long continuous spin - out mark on Lyczak went to Shamesman’s property to take photographs and observed a Shamesman reported the incident to the Durham po lice. Officer Michael

over a small bush and left a tire mark on the lawn. away. As he did so, his truck went off the paved portion of the driveway, ran back into his truck, backed up to turn the truck around and then sped quickly that you were late.” At that point, the defendant, without saying anything, got Shamesman said, “It would have been nice if you had called to let me know conversation ensued about the defendant’s tardiness, during which p. 3 3

concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and NADEAU, DALIANIS and GALWAY, JJ.,

was sufficient evidence supporting the conviction. presented that the lawn and bush had value. See RSA 6 p. 3 37:2, I. Thus, there prove that under RSA 634:2, III. It was also a fair inference from the evidence evidence of a specific monetary amount of damage, the State did not have to and b ush in Shamesman’s yard had been damaged. While there was no been “run over.” From this testimony, the trier of fact could infer that the lawn he observed that there were tire marks on the driveway and a small shrub had left tire marks on the driveway and lawn. Officer Lyczak likewise testified that Here, Shamesman testified that the defendant ran over a small bush and

favorable to the State. Id. 712 (200 p. 3 3). We also take all inferences from the evidence in the light most evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Hull, 149 N.H. 706, To determine whether the evidence was sufficient in this case, we examine the that the defendant “recklessly damage[d] property of another.” RSA 634:2, I. Next, we must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prove

not have to prove a specific pecuniary loss. conclude that under section III of the criminal mischief statute, the State did language of section III does not support the defendant’s argument. We and II - a, does not require the State to prove pecuniary loss. Thus, the plain variant of criminal mischief. See RSA 6 p. 3 34:2, III. Section III, unlike sec tions II In this case, however, the defendant was charged with the least serious

Belanger, 114 N.H. 616, 619 (1974). the a mount of the pecuniary loss beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. State v. to seek conviction of a more serious variant, the State must charge and prove grade of the offense. See State v. French, 146 N.H. 97, 99 - 100 (2001). Thus, 6 p. 3 34:2, II(a); RSA 634:2, II - a. The amount of the pecuniary loss establishes the variants of criminal mischief are defined in terms of pecuniary lo ss. See RSA The criminal mischief statute is structured so that the more serious

under RSA 6 p. 3 34:2, III (1996), “[a]ll other criminal mischief is a misdemeanor.” to cause “pecuniary loss in excess of $ 100 and not more than $1000.” Finally, mischief is a class A misdemeanor if the person purposely causes or attempts “[p]ecuniary loss in excess of $1000.” Under RSA 634:2, II - a (1996), criminal II(a) (1996), criminal mischief is a class B felony if the person purposely causes statute also provides different grades of criminal mischief. Under RSA 634:2, of value, including real estate.” RSA 637:2, I; see RSA 634:2, IV (1996). The damage s property of another.” Property is defined in relevant part as “anything