State of New Hampshire v. Bryan Erickson

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0111, State of New Hampshire v. Bryan
Erickson, the court on September 29, 2021, issued the
following order:

Having considered the memoranda of law and oral arguments of the
parties, the court concludes that a formal written opinion is unnecessary in
this case. The defendant, Bryan Erickson, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Honigberg, J.) denying his request for bail pending trial. We affirm.

The following relevant facts are supported by the record or are
undisputed. On February 1, 2021, the defendant was charged with second-
degree assault, obstructing a report of crime or injury, criminal trespass,
disobeying an officer, and three counts of domestic violence simple assault
following an incident at the complainant’s house. On February 2, the trial
court held a bail hearing and, from the bench, issued an order for preventive
detention without bail. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that
the defendant, a Massachusetts State Police Trooper and former Marine, posed
a danger to the complainant and the public because of the training he received
as part of his military and law enforcement service and because of evidence
that he fled the complainant’s house at a dangerously high speed. See
RSA 597:2, III(a) (Supp. 2020). At the defendant’s request, the court then set
the matter for an evidentiary hearing.

The evidentiary hearing took place on February 11 and 12. The court
heard testimony from two police officers. One officer recounted an interview he
held with the complainant. The complainant informed the officer that the
defendant arrived at her house in the early hours of January 31. A struggle
broke out between them and the defendant restrained the complainant, choked
her, hit and grabbed her, covered her mouth to stifle her screaming, and
interfered with her multiple attempts to call 911. The court also heard
testimony from an officer who responded to the scene. He testified that when
police arrived at the complainant’s house, the defendant was in the open
garage and, upon seeing the police, closed the garage door. The officers then
spoke with the complainant, who told them that the defendant fled out the
back door toward his vehicle. The defendant then drove his vehicle through a
residential area at a high rate of speed. Although the police were in pursuit,
they were unable to catch up with the defendant.
 On February 16, the court issued a new bail order. Based on evidence
presented at the hearing that the defendant acted in a possessive and
manipulative manner toward the complainant, fled the complainant’s house,
and then drove at a high rate of speed through a residential neighborhood, the
court found that the defendant posed a safety risk and ordered preventive
detention without bail. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the court denied. The February 16 order and the denial of the motion for
reconsideration are the subject of this appeal.

The defendant challenges the trial court’s finding that he would pose a
safety risk if released. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred when
it excluded relevant exculpatory evidence at the evidentiary hearing, considered
the defendant’s record of military and law enforcement service in making its
finding of dangerousness, relied on disputed evidence that the defendant
engaged in a high-speed car chase with the police, and failed to give due weight
to a report issued by the Rockingham County Supervised Pretrial Release
program.

We review the trial court’s decision under our unsustainable exercise of
discretion standard. State v. Spaulding, 172 N.H. 205, 207 (2019). In
determining whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion, we
consider whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain
the court’s judgment. Id. at 207-08. To satisfy this standard, the defendant
must establish that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to
the prejudice of his case. Id. at 208. “‘Our standard of review is not whether
we would rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person
could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same
evidence.’” In the Matter of Braunstein & Braunstein, 173 N.H. 38, 47 (2020)
(quoting Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003)). “We will not substitute
our judgment for that of the trial court.” Id.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s February 16 order and its ruling on the motion for
reconsideration, the defendant’s challenges to them, the relevant law, and the
record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the defendant has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2