Cited by

State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. 420 (2004) (subsection (a)); State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790 (2005) (subsection (f) (repealed 2016, see Laws 2016, ch. 136)).

In the book that the officers used, the case annotations to the statute indicated that subparagraph (f) had been declared unconstitutional years earlier.

“The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality bears the burden of proof.” State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005).

“The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality bears the burden of proof.” State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005).

State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005) (“All words of a statute are to be given effect, and the legislature is presumed not to use words that are superfluous or redundant.”); Appeal of Barry, 142 N.H. 284, 287 (1997) (we will not interpret a statute so as to render its language meaningless).

State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791, 887 A.2d 132 (2005) ("All words of a statute are to be given effect, and the legislature is presumed not to use words that are superfluous or redundant."); Appeal of Barry, 142 N.H. 284, 287, 700 A.2d 296 (1997) (we will not interpret a statute so as to render its language meaningless).

[3] See State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791, 887 A.2d 132 (2005) ("All words of a statute are to be given effect, and the legislature is presumed not to use words that are superfluous or redundant.").

State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005) (“All words of a statute are to be given effect, and the legislature is presumed not to use words that are superfluous or redundant.”).

In distinguishing RSA 644:4,1(b) from subsections 1(a) and 1(f) that we had earlier found unconstitutional in State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. 420, 424 (2004), and State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 793 (2005), we stated: RSA 644:4, 1(b) does not apply to any call made to anyone, anywhere, at any time, whether or not conversation ensues.

“The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality bears the burden of proof.” State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005).

"The party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears the burden of proof."

While we agree that under standard rules of statutory construction, none of the terms “[a]lters, destroys, conceals or removes” used in RSA 641:6 may be redundant or superfluous, see State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005) (noting that “[a]ll words of a statute are to be given effect, and the legislature is presumed not to use words that are superfluous or redundant”), the terms need not be mutually exclusive.

State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 791 (2005) (interpreting a statute).

The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality bears the burden of proof.

“[A] statute will not be construed to be unconstitutional, where it is susceptible to a construction rendering it constitutional.” State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 793 (2005) (brackets and quotation omitted).

Following our decision in State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790 (2005), in which we held subsection (f) of RSA 644:4,1, unconstitutional, the defendant moved to dismiss two of the harassment informations upon which he had been convicted.

We do not doubt the seriousness of the threat posed by stalkers, and we reject the respondent’s argument that the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(a), see State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. 420, 425 (2004), and RSA 644:4, 1(f), see State v. Pierce, 152 N.H. 790, 793 (2005), has any effect upon the reference to RSA 644:4, II in RSA 633:3-a, II(a)(7).