NHCaseLaw.com

The defendant, Stephen Mann, appeals his conviction for first degree murder. He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) denying without a hearing his request for an in camera review of the counseling and DCYF records of his two children; (2) permitting a State witness to testify while wearing a ski mask; (3) permitting the State to play portions of a 911 call; and (4) denying his motion to appoint new counsel. We affirm.

BROCK, C.J. The defendant, Chad Evans, was convicted of reckless second-degree murder, see RSA 630:1-b (1996), five counts of second-degree assault, see RSA 631:2 (1996), endangering the welfare of a minor, see RSA 639:3, I (1996), and simple assault, see RSA 631:2-a (1996), following the death of twenty-one-month-old Kassidy Bortner, the daughter of his girlfriend, Amanda Bortner. He appeals, arguing that: (1) the Superior Court (T. Nadeau, J.) erroneously gave the jury a false exculpatory statement instruction; (2) the evidence on the second-degree murder charge was insufficient because it failed to eliminate the conclusion that Kassidy’s babysitter, Jeffrey Marshall, killed her; and (3) the court erroneously admitted various of Amanda’s statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See N.H. R. Ev. 803(2). We affirm.

The State seeks to consolidate one simple assault charge, in which the State alleges the defendant choked Amanda Bortner, with the second degree murder charge, the two first degree assault charges and the six second degree assault charges in which the State alleges the defendant abused Kassidy Bortner. The defendant objects.

The defendant, Stephen Mann, is charged with one count of first degree murder for the alleged shooting death of his wife. Presently before the court are the parties’ motions in limine regarding the admissibility of an audio recording of a 911 call made to the police by the defendant’s daughter. The State’s seeks admission of the recording; the defendant seeks its exclusion from evidence. I conclude that a portion of the recording must be redacted but that, as redacted, the recording is admissible whether or not the daughter testifies at trial.