Clarifying Trial Court Discretion: Juror Impartiality and False Exculpatory Statement Instructions in State v. Barron

Introduction

State of New Hampshire v. Armando Barron, decided on April 2, 2025 by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, addresses three separate challenges arising from a first-degree murder conviction: (1) the denial of a for-cause challenge to a prospective juror, (2) the trial court’s decision to give a “false exculpatory statement” instruction for the defendant’s own statements but not for those of a key witness (the defendant’s wife), and (3) the redaction of portions of the wife’s Violence Risk Assessment before disclosure. The parties are the State of New Hampshire (appellee) and Armando Barron (appellant). The court’s unanimous order, issued under Supreme Court Rule 20(3), affirms all challenged rulings and in doing so clarifies the scope of trial-court discretion in jury selection, jury instructions, and pre-trial disclosure.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the entire record, oral and written arguments, and applied the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard. It held:

The trial court properly refused to strike Juror Number 1 for cause despite her initial hesitation about the reasonable-doubt standard, because she ultimately assured the court she would apply the correct standard.
The court did not err in giving the false exculpatory statement instruction for Barron’s own admissions but not for the wife’s false statements, as no binding authority requires “evenhanded” application of that discretionary instruction to witnesses.
The trial court properly redacted non-material portions of the wife’s Violence Risk Assessment, as they were neither relevant nor material to Barron’s defense.

Accordingly, all of Barron’s appeals failed, and the convictions—including first-degree murder under RSA 630:1-a, I(a)—were affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court’s opinion draws heavily on established New Hampshire and federal principles governing trial discretion:

State v. Dana, 175 N.H. 27 (2022): Standard for reviewing discretionary rulings is whether they constitute an “unsustainable exercise of discretion.”
State v. Soulia, 174 N.H. 225 (2021): Adds that juror impartiality determinations are entitled to special deference and may be overturned only if against the weight of the evidence.
State v. Cross, 128 N.H. 732 (1986): Confirms that a juror’s initial misunderstanding of reasonable doubt does not require disqualification if she ultimately pledges to follow the court’s instructions.
State v. Fischer, 143 N.H. 311 (1999): Defines the false exculpatory statement instruction and its limited purpose of permitting the jury to draw a consciousness-of-guilt inference from the defendant’s known false statements.
State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416 (2003): Rejects any requirement that false-exculpatory instructions be applied to witnesses and underscores that witness statements may form a “theory of the case” without special instruction.
State v. Girard, 173 N.H. 619 (2020): Holds that pre-trial records need not be disclosed if they are neither material nor relevant to the defense.
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (1993): Permits the court to summarily reject peripheral arguments without extended discussion.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court applied the highly deferential “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard to each challenged ruling:

Juror Challenge: Under the New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions, a criminal defendant has a right to an impartial jury. Barron argued Juror 1 was disqualified because she hesitated to state unequivocally that a reasonable doubt would lead to acquittal. Citing Cross and Soulia, the court held that once Juror 1 affirmed she would follow the court’s reasonable-doubt instruction, her impartiality could not be questioned. The challenge failed because the juror’s ultimate assurance dispelled any potential bias.
False Exculpatory Statement Instruction: The trial court’s jury instructions can include a false exculpatory statement instruction—a tool allowing jurors to infer consciousness of guilt when a defendant knowingly makes a false exculpatory statement. Barron contended the absence of a parallel instruction for the wife’s false statements created unfairness. The court relied on Fischer and Evans to hold that no controlling authority requires “evenhanded” use of this optional instruction for witnesses, and it resides within the trial court’s discretion.
Redaction of Violence Risk Assessment: The State had sought in camera review of the wife’s assessment prepared in a separate prosecution. After reviewing the unredacted material, the trial court redacted non-material passages. Under Girard, disclosure is required only for material, relevant documents. The Supreme Court concluded the redacted portions bore no relevance to Barron’s defense and affirmed the court’s exercise of discretion.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces three practical takeaways:

Trial-Court Deference: Appellate courts will uphold jury-selection and instructional decisions unless they are “clearly untenable or unreasonable.”
Evenhandedness Not Required: A defendant cannot demand symmetrical application of discretionary jury instructions to non-defendant witnesses.
Targeted Disclosure: Pre-trial records need only be disclosed if they are material or relevant, preserving judicial efficiency and privacy when appropriate.

Future litigants will find that challenges to juror qualifications, discretionary instructions, and document disclosure face a high bar unless clear error or material prejudice is demonstrated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unsustainable Exercise of Discretion: A standard of review that upholds trial-court decisions unless they are “clearly untenable or unreasonable” and prejudicial to the case.
False Exculpatory Statement Instruction: A jury instruction permitting an inference of guilt when a defendant knowingly tells a false story to avoid blame.
In Camera Review: A private examination by the judge of sensitive or privileged documents to determine what, if anything, should be disclosed to the parties.
Violence Risk Assessment: A psychological or forensic evaluation estimating a person’s likelihood of committing future violent acts; here prepared for the wife in an unrelated matter.

Conclusion

State of New Hampshire v. Barron clarifies and reaffirms the broad scope of trial-court discretion in jury selection, jury instructions, and document disclosure. By upholding the trial court’s rulings under the “unsustainable exercise of discretion” standard, the Supreme Court signals that only clear, material errors will succeed on appeal. This decision will serve as a key reference for litigants challenging juror qualifications, seeking uniform jury instructions, or demanding broad pre-trial disclosure.