State of New Hampshire v. Christopher C. Derrico

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0271, State of New Hampshire v.
Christopher C. Derrico, the court on July 1, 2024, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Christopher C. D’Errico, appeals his
convictions by the Circuit Court (Stephen, J.), on charges of animal cruelty for
leaving dogs confined in a crate within a vehicle on two separate occasions.
See RSA 644:8 (Supp. 2023). We construe his brief to be challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law
that we review de novo. State v. Cullen, 175 N.H. 628, 630 (2023). It is the
defendant’s burden on appeal to prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all
the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most
favorable to the State, could have found the essential elements of the charged
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. As the trier of fact, the trial judge is
free to accept or reject any portion of any witness’s testimony, and to resolve
conflicts in testimony. State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 275 (2015). Credibility
determinations are within the province of the trier of fact and will be upheld
unless no rational trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion. Id.

In this case, the trial court found that the defendant violated RSA 644:8,
III(a) and RSA 644:8, III(h) when he left multiple dogs confined in a crate in a
parked vehicle on two hot summer days. RSA 644:8, III(a) makes it unlawful to
“negligently deprive[] or cause[] to be deprived any animal in [the defendant’s]
possession or custody necessary care, sustenance or shelter.” RSA 644:8, III(h)
makes it unlawful to “negligently permit[] or cause[] any animal in [the
defendant’s] possession or custody to be subjected to cruelty, inhumane
treatment, or unnecessary suffering of any kind.” To establish that the
defendant acted with criminal negligence, the State was required to prove that
he “fail[ed] to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the
material element[s] [of RSA 644:8, III] exist[] or will result from his conduct,”
and that “[t]he risk [was] of such a nature and degree that his failure to become
aware of it constitute[d] a gross deviation from the conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation.” RSA 626, II(d) (2016). Leaving a dog
confined in a hot vehicle may constitute criminal negligence for purposes of
RSA 644:8, III. See State v. Butler, 175 N.H. 444, 448-49 (2022).
 Viewed most favorably to the State, see Cullen, 175 N.H. at 630, the
evidence in this case establishes that on July 30, 2022, when the outside
temperature was 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the defendant left three dogs in a
single crate in the covered bed of a truck parked in the sun without adequate
ventilation. Although the investigating officer was able to determine that the
truck had not been parked there for long, it was much hotter inside the truck
where the dogs were than it was outside, the three dogs were “crammed” in the
crate in close proximity to each other, and the defendant had gone into a
gambling establishment “for a few” and had left a note on the truck claiming
that the dogs had water and a “mist” machine and directing anyone who had a
concern about the dogs to call him. Although the officer elected not to arrest
the defendant at that time, he told the defendant that it was irresponsible to
leave the dogs in those conditions while he gambled and directed him to let the
dogs out to “use the bathroom” and to then “head straight home” with them.

One month later, on August 30, 2022, the defendant left two large dogs
inside a single crate in a different parked vehicle for at least two hours with
inadequate ventilation. It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit outside, significantly
hotter inside the vehicle, the crate was not large enough to accommodate the
two dogs, and the dogs were showing signs of distress. After the investigating
officer removed the dogs from the car and brought them into an air-conditioned
building, the dogs appeared to be “desperately thirsty” and drank water
“desperately.” The defendant told the investigating officer that he had left the
dogs in those conditions because they were “outdoor dogs.”

On this evidence, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. Although
the defendant disputes much of the testimony of the State’s witnesses and
questions their veracity, a rational trier of fact could have come to a different
conclusion than the defendant in evaluating the witnesses’ credibility. See
Carr, 167 N.H. at 275. To the extent the defendant raises additional
arguments in his brief, the arguments are not sufficiently developed. See State
v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2