2022-0523, State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Laguerre

bail. We conclude that the trial court correctly interpreted RSA 597:2, III(a) as pertaining to his or her health and safety while confine d, when determining III(a) permits courts to consider the safety of a defendant, including factors whether to order preventive detention. T he defendant argues that RSA 597:2, the conditions of confinement endanger the defendant’s safety when deciding that RSA 597:2, III(a) (Supp. 202 2) does not authorize it to consider whether Superior Court (Delker, J.) d enying his motion to amend bail. The court ruled DONOVAN, J. The defendant, Dan iel Laguerre, appeals an order of the

Michael S. Lewis on the brief), for the defendant. Rath, Young and Pignatelli, P.C., of Concord (Cassandra A. Moran and

general (Audriana Mekula, attorney, on the memorandum of law), for the State. John M. Formella, attorney general, and Anthony J. Galdieri, solicitor

No. 2022 - 0523 Hillsborough - northern judicial district

page is: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our - courts/supreme - court a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any 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

to respond to the defendant’s constitutional allegations. motion for a bail hearing failed to provide the HCHOC notice or an opportunity to follow restrictive bail conditions. Moreover, t he court also noted that the the alleged in adequate medical care — make him less dangero us or more likely not argue that the factors he set forth in his motion to amend bail — namely, issue of dangerousness. In this case, the court found that the defendant did this decision, the court explained, it m ay c onsider all evidence r elevant to the that release will endanger the safety of that person or the public. In making restrictive bail conditions if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence III(a) allows a court t o order a defendant’s preventive detention or release on whether to order preventive detention. The court reasoned that RSA 597: p. 2 2, confinement endanger [the detainee’s] health and welfare” when deciding not authorize the court to consider whether “the conditions of [a detainee’s] The trial court denied the motio n and ruled that RSA 597:2, III(a) does

to provide him with proper medical treatment. sought release on cash bail and an order from the court requiring the HCHOC would be a ble to “access and take his life - saving medication.” The defendant proper medical care violated his constitutional rights, and that, if released, he saving medication.” The defendant alleged that the HCHOC’s failure to provide had not received proper medical care while in detention and was “denied life - “severe complications or death.” In his motion, the defendant claimed that he and chronic illnesses” that, without proper medical treatment, could result in amend bail alleging that he suffers from “a series of complex medical issues Shortly after his detention, the defendant filed an emergency motion to

been held at the Hillsborough County House of Corrections (HCHOC). preventively detained pursuant to RSA 597: p. 2 2, III(a). T he defendant has since his arraignment a fter the second incident, the trial court ordered the defendant charged with several additional crimes of violence against the same victim. A t arraignment and while on release, the defendant was again arrested and commissioner scheduled the arraignment for September 2022. Prior to his from having any contact with the victim or being within 300 f eet of her. The personal recognizance with conditions that, in part, prohibited the defendant Based on this incident, a bail commissioner ordered the defendant release d on charged with second degree assault and do mestic violence – criminal restraint. supported by the record. In August 2022, the defendant was arrested and The following facts are agreed upon by the parties or are otherwise

Accordingly, we affirm. safety of a defendant while detained when deciding whether to grant bail. applied in this case and hold that it does not authorize a court to consider the p. 3 3

. . .. (b) Assuring the court appearance of charged persons.

paragraph IV. the court may consider all relevant factors presented pursuant to whether release will endanger the safety of that person or the public, endanger the safety of that person or the public. In determining court determine s by clear and convincing evidence that release will but not limited to electronic monitoring and supervision, only if the bail, or, in the alternative, may order restrictive conditions including under RSA 17 p. 3 3 - B, the court may order preventive detention without arraignment, is charged with a violati on of a protective order issued violation of a protective order under RSA 458:16, III, or after any criminal offense, an offense listed in RSA 173 - B:1, I, or a (a) Safety of the public or the defendant. If a person is charged with

consider the f ollowing issues: When considering whether to release or detain a person, the court shall

release or detain an individual pending trial. It provides: sets forth three issues that a court must consider when deciding whether to a defendant’s preventive detention. RSA 597: 2 (Supp. 2022). RSA 597:2, III trial. RSA 597:1 (2001). In certain circumstances, however, a cour t may order As a general princip le, anyone who is arrested is eligible for relea se pending We begin our analysis b y setting forth the relevant statutory provisions.

statutes in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. Id. add language the legislature did not see fit to include. Id. W e interpret statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. W e interpret legislative intent from the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according the words of the statute considered as a whole. See id. We first look to the matters of statutory interpretation, the intent of the legislature is expressed in law that we review de novo. See State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, p. 3 31 (2015). In statutory interpretation. The interpretation of a stat ute presents a question of the defendant pending trial. The resolution of this issue presents a question of defendant’s safety while detained when deciding whether to release or detain At issue is whether RSA 597:2, III(a) authorizes a trial court to consider a

the proper procedural form.” This appea l followed. without prejudice to his ability to challenge his conditions of confinement “in denied, reiterating that the denial of the defendant’s motion to amend bail was Subsequently, t he defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the court p. 4 4

subsequently discussed in subsection (a). See RSA 597:2, III(a); Black’s Law context, the phrase resembles a heading that describes the content conjunction with the remainder of subsection (a) of RSA 597:2, III. In this We consider the phrase “[s]afety of the public or the defendant,” id., in

See Pinault, 16 8 N.H. at 31. public or the defendant,” id., within the context of the bail statute as a whole. disagree, because that interpretation fails to consider the phrase “[s]afety of the to consid er, more broadly, the “[s]afety of the public or the defendant.” Id. We the public,” supplements, but does not limit, the subsection’s initial instruction factors relevant to “whether release will endanger the safety of that person or 597:2, III(a), particular ly the last sentence that authorizes consideration of his continued incarceration.” He contends that the procedure outlined in RSA court to “make a determination on the safety of the defendant with regards to T he defendant argues that RSA 597:2, III(a) additionally requires the

defendant poses a risk to his or her own safety if released into the community. court reasoned, a defendant’s safety may be a relevant factor, but only when a Thus, when reading RSA 597:2, III(a) in its entirety, it is clear that, as the trial will endanger the safety of that person or the public.” Id. (emphasis added). make this decision, a court may consider factor s re levant to “whether release safety o f that person or the public.” RSA 597:2, III(a) (emphasis added). To “determine[] by clear and convincing evidence that release will endanger the considering the “[s]afety of the public or the defendant,” a court must a person,” including the “[s]afety of the public or the defendant.” When issues that a court must consider when deciding “whether to release or detain defendant’s release when contemplating bail. RSA 597:2, III identifies three court to consider the safety of the defendant and the public only upon the We conclude that th e plain language of RSA 597:2, III(a) permits a trial

Stat e. while detained are ir relevant to the court’s bail decision. We agree with the bail. Therefore, according to the State, factors related to the defendant’s safety defendant and the public upon the defendant’s release when contemplating that RSA 597:2, III(a) per mits a court to consider only the safety of the to the inadequate medical care he claims to have received. The State counters considered the fact that his health is at risk while detained at the HCHOC due release. Specifically, the defendant contends that the trial court should h ave consider the defendant’s safety, both while detained and upon his or her of the public or the defendant,” id., allows a court when contemplating bail to whether to release or detain a person, the court shall consider the . . . [s]afety As to the merits, the defendant argues that the phrase “[w]hen considering

RSA 597:2, III (emphase s added).

(c) Failure of a person to abide by previous bail conditions.. . . p. 5 5

defendant’s safety upon release, would constitute a significant departure fr om consider the defendant’s safety, including w hile confined, rather than just the A uthorizing a cou rt when deciding whether to grant or deny bail to broadly p. 5 597:2, II, III, III - a (Supp. 2016); RSA 597:2, II, III, III - a (Supp. 2011). IV(a) (Supp. 2019) (amended 2020); RSA 597:2, III(a), IV(a) (Supp. 2018); RSA mentioning the defendant’s safety while confined. Se e, e.g., RSA 597:2, III(a), release would endanger the safety of the defendant or the public with out tim es, it has consistent ly require d courts to consider whether a defendant’s Moreover, a lthough New Hampshire’s bail statute h as been revised many

of the statute. ’” (quoting State v. Kilgus, 12 p. 5 5 N.H. 739, 742 (1984))). unambiguous this court will not consider the title in determining the meaning of its interpretation, and where the statutory la nguage is clear and Companies, 143 N.H. 270, 274 (1998) (“‘ The title of a statute is not conclusive that the meaning of RSA 597:2, III(a) is unambiguous. See In re CAN Ins. word or phra se,” Brotherhood of R.R., 331 U.S. at 529, and we have concluded Moreover, headings “are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous activity, and therefore did not include the defendant’s political conduct). pertained to merchants and the regulation of commercial, rather than political, a local ordinance discussed prohibitions “generally,” the provi sion’s text 132 N.H. 376, 378 - 80 (1989) (concluding that, although the section heading of defendant’s safety only upon release when deciding bail. See State v. Hodgkiss, predominates the more detailed instruction that a court should consider the such that the broad language of “[s]afety of the pu blic or the defendant” O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528 (1947))). W e will not interpret RSA 597:2, III(a) provisions of the text. ’” (quoting Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & (“‘ [H]eadings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed specific text of a statute. See Banaian v. Bascom, 175 N.H. 151, 157 (2022) he ading inv ites the interpretive rule that a general heading does not control the Analogizing the phrase “[s]afety of the public or the defendant” to a

pending trial, followed b y a more detailed explanation. must consider when determining whether to release or detain a defendant introductory language setting forth the second and third issues that a court Subsections (b) and (c) of RSA p. 5 597:2, III are s imilarly formatted and include defendant and the public if the defendant is released from confinement. Id. its b ail determination — specifically, that it should consider the safety of the how a court should contemplate the safety of the public and the defendant in pending trial. RSA 597:2, III(a). The remainder of subsection (a) then specifies must consider when determinin g whether to release or detain a defendant “Safety of the public or the defendant” introduces the first issue that a court the section. It should not be a recapitulation of the contents of the section.”). that a section heading “should briefly and specifically disclose the content of Sutherland Statutory Construction § 21:4, at 1 p. 6 67 (7th ed. 2009) (explaining caption of a section of a statute”); 1A N. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Dictionary 864 (11th ed. 2019) (defining “heading” in part as “[a] brief title or 6

passing references to con stitutional provisions without application to the facts defendant asks that we consider the merits of his constitution al claims, his the constitutional violation alleged in this case. To the extent that the meaning of RSA 597:2, III(a) does not permit a trial court to grant bail based on decline to address this argument, however, given our conclusion that the plain motion based on the HCHOC’s lack of notice or opportunity to respond. We The def endant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his

review”). (declining to address arguments “not sufficiently developed for appellate how it applies in this context. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) protect a defendant’s constitutional rights, but t he defendant fails to explain bail cases). T he judiciary possesses the express and inherent authorit y t o 597:1 - c is constitutional, even though it deprives courts of discretion in certain III(a). S ee State v. Furgal, 1 p. 6 61 N.H. 206, 210, 215 (2010) (ruling that RSA boundless. That discretion may be cabined by statute, as it is in RSA 597:2, a defendant on bail. A trial court’s discretion in making bail decisions is not conside r a defendant’s safety while detained when deciding whether to release discussed above, RSA 597:2, III(a), by its t erms, does not authorize a court to Although court s generally have such discretion, for the reasons

judiciary’s inherent authority to protect constitutional rights. broad discretion granted to trial courts to make bail determinations, and the circumstances based upon the statutory language in RSA 597:2, III(a), the deciding whether to grant or deny bail, a court must consider these bail is an appropriate remedy.” Accordingly, the defendant suggests that when unsafe,” and “explain[s] why these co nditions create an environment whereby background to his request for bail,” “outline[s] why his continued detention is claims that the alleged lack of proper medical care “merely provide[s] conditions of his confinement constitute a constitutional violation. Rather, he requesting bail, he was not asking the trial court to determine whether the State to defend or otherwise correct the conditions of his confinement and, by However, in his reply brief the defendant clarified that he is not asking the he has received at the HCHOC violates his state and constitutional rights. by failing to consider his assertion that the allegedly inadequate medical care In a related argument, the defendant maintains that the trial court erred

“[s]afety of the public or the defendant”). 2019) (amended 2020), with RSA 59 p. 7 7:2, III(a) (Supp. 2022) (adding the phrase might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”); c ompare RSA 597:2, IV(a) (Supp. a re gulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one 4 p. 6 68 (2001) (“Congress, we have held, does not alter the fundamental details of defendant.” S ee Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, legislature did so by adopting the single phrase, “[s]afety of the public or the prerogative to grant courts this level of discretion, it is unlikely that the the established dangerousness factor. Although it is within the legislature’ s 7

concurred. M AC DONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, and HANTZ MARCONI, JJ.,

of RSA 59 p. 7 7:2, III(a), it is free, within constitutional limits, to amend the statute. grant or deny bail. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our construction court to consider a defendant’s safety while detained when deciding whether to RSA 597:2, III(a) and conclude that RSA 597:2, III(a) does not authorize a trial For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s interpretation of

appropriate pleading challenging his conditions of confinement. denial of his motion to amen d bail is without prejudice to his ability to file an that he has suffered while detained. However, a s the trial court observed, the analysis. W e do not minimize the potential harm that the defendant alleges argum ent, a ny alleged constitutional violation would not alter our statutory Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49. In any event, even if the defendant developed the of the case do not develop a legal argument sufficiently for our review. See