THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
Appeal Pursuant to Rule 7 from Judgment
of the Rockingham County Superior Court
REPLY BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT
Thomas Barnard
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender
Appellate Defender Program
10 Ferry Street, Suite 202
Concord, NH 03301
NH Bar # 16414
603-224-1236
(Fifteen minutes oral argument)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities
3
Argument I. THE COURT ERRED BY ORDERING MOORE TO PAY FOR A NEW SECURITY SYSTEM THAT THE VICTIM PURCHASED FOLLOWING THE BURGLARY
4
Conclusion
6
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases Appeal of Town of Lincoln, ___ N.H. ___ (June 7, 2019)
5
Statutes RSA 651:61-a
4
I. THE COURT ERRED BY ORDERING MOORE TO PAY
FOR A NEW SECURITY SYSTEM THAT THE VICTIM
PURCHASED FOLLOWING THE BURGLARY.
At four points in its brief, the State cites a particular
sentence from RSA 651:61-a, II: “The legislature intends that
the court increase, to the maximum extent feasible, the
number of instances in which victims receive restitution.”
SB* 17, 22, 23, 25. When placed in context, this language
does not support the State’s position.
RSA 651:61-a sets forth a detailed “Statement of
Purpose” for the restitution statutes. In the first sentence of
this statement, “[t]he legislature finds and declares that the
victims of crimes often suffer losses through no fault of their
own and for which there is no compensation.” RSA 651:61-a,
I. It then declares that the restitution statutes are intended to
“establish a presumption that the victim will be compensated
by the offender who is responsible for the loss.” Id. Thus, the
purpose of the restitution statutes is to minimize the number
of instances in which “victims... suffer losses... for which
there is no compensation, ” RSA 651:61-a, I, by maximizing
“the number of instances in which victims receive restitution, ”
RSA 651:61-a, II (emphasis added). The purpose is not, as
the State suggests, to maximize the amount of money that
each defendant is ordered to pay.
Even if the legislature had indicated an intent to
maximize the amount of the money that each defendant is
ordered to pay, that would not necessarily authorize a court
to order a defendant to pay over $2000 for a victim’s new
home security system. “[I]t frustrates rather than effectuates
legislative intent simplistically to assume that whatever
furthers the statute’s primary objective must be the law.”
Appeal of Town of Lincoln, ___ N.H. ___ (June 7, 2019).
“[A]bsent evidence that the legislature intended such a result,
... it would be error to allow the broad statutory purpose to
override the specific language chosen by the legislature.” Id.
Here, for the reasons stated in Moore’s opening brief, the
specific language chosen by the legislature —
“compensat[ion], ” “economic loss” and “direct result” —
establish that the statute did not authorize the court to order
Moore to pay for the victim’s new home security system.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Bruce Moore respectfully requests that this Court reverse.
Undersigned counsel requests fifteen minutes oral argument.
This brief complies with the applicable word limitation and contains 375 words.
/s/ Thomas Barnard
Thomas Barnard, #16414
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender
Appellate Defender Program
10 Ferry Street, Suite 202
Concord, NH 03301
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this reply brief is being timely provided to Stephen Fuller, Senior Assistant Attorney General, through the electronic filing system’s electronic service.
/s/ Thomas Barnard
Thomas Barnard