Introduction

In the landmark case State of New Hampshire v. Adam Hersom, decided by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on January 24, 2025, the court addressed critical issues surrounding the admissibility of covertly recorded evidence under the state's Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Law, RSA chapter 570-A. This case revolves around the defendant, Adam Hersom, who appealed a Superior Court decision that granted his motion to exclude an audio recording obtained by the complainant, purportedly in violation of RSA 570-A.

The key issues in this case include the legality of one-party recordings, the interpretation of mens rea (criminal intent) in the context of covert recordings, and the procedural handling of evidence exclusion motions under RSA 570-A.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the appellate case where the State of New Hampshire appealed the Superior Court's decision to exclude an audio recording made by the complainant. The Superior Court had ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, Adam Hersom, by excluding the recording, affirming that the State failed to prove the recording was made in Maine and that the complainant did not act "willfully" in violation of RSA 570-A.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, emphasizing that the lower court correctly applied the statutory provisions and appropriate legal standards. The Court held that the State did not meet the burden of proving that the recording was made in Maine or that the complainant acted with the requisite mens rea to make the recording subject to exclusion under RSA 570-A:6.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on precedent cases to interpret RSA 570-A. Notably:

• State v. Clark, 177 N.H. (2024): Clarified that one-party recordings can constitute either misdemeanors or felonies based on the individual's mental state.
• State v. Jette, 174 N.H. 669 (2021): Affirmed the broad discretion trial courts have in determining the admissibility of evidence.
• State v. Minson, 173 N.H. 501 (2020): Established that appellate courts should defer to trial courts' factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
• State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65 (2014) & FISCHER v. HOOPER, 143 N.H. 585 (1999): Provided definitions and interpretations related to mens rea in wiretapping cases.

These precedents collectively influenced the Court's interpretation of the statutory language and the application of legal principles pertaining to covert recordings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting RSA 570-A, specifically sections 570-A:2 and 570-A:6. The pivotal points include:

• Statutory Interpretation: The Court analyzed the language of RSA 570-A:2, I, which distinguishes between misdemeanors and felonies based on whether the interception was wilful and with knowledge of legal prohibitions.
• Mens Rea: Building on State v. Clark, the Court emphasized that a one-party recording becomes a felony only if there is wilful intent, meaning the recording party knowingly violated the law.
• Burden of Proof: The Court upheld that the State bears the burden of proving both the location of the recording and the complainant's knowledge of the legal requirements.
• Discretion of Trial Court: Citing State v. Jette and State v. Minson, the Supreme Court deferred to the Superior Court's factual determinations, acknowledging the trial court's discretion in evaluating evidentiary hearings.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the trial court's findings, particularly regarding the absence of direct testimony from the complainant and the reliance on hearsay evidence.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for future cases involving covert recordings in New Hampshire:

• Clarification of Mens Rea: Establishes a clearer standard for determining when a one-party recording constitutes a felony, focusing on the recorder's intent and knowledge.
• Evidence Admissibility: Reinforces the importance of primary evidence and firsthand testimony in suppression hearings, potentially limiting the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
• Legal Strategy: Encourages the State to pursue more direct evidence or compel testimony from the recording party to meet the burden of proof in exclusion motions.
• Precedential Value: Serves as a guiding precedent for interpreting RSA 570-A, influencing how similar cases are adjudicated in the future.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in State of New Hampshire v. Adam Hersom underscores the nuanced application of RSA 570-A regarding covert recordings. By affirming the trial court's exclusion of the complainant's recording, the Court emphasized the necessity of proving both the legality of the recording's location and the recorder's awareness of legal constraints. This Judgment clarifies the standards for mens rea in wiretapping cases and reinforces the judiciary's role in meticulously scrutinizing evidence admissibility. As a result, future cases will likely see more rigorous evaluations of intent and evidence provenance, impacting both prosecution strategies and defendants' rights in New Hampshire.