State v. Chaney

1

State of New Hampshire v. Vincent Chaney

No. 2022-0718

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

May 3, 2024

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant Vincent Chaney, appeals two orders from Superior Court (Nicolosi, J.) denying his motions to suppress and for a new trial. The defendant argues that the court erred in denying: (1) his motion to suppress based on misrepresentations or omissions contained within the search warrant affidavit that were sufficiently material to undermine a finding of probable cause; and (2) his motion for a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the hearing on his motion to suppress. We conclude that the affidavit did not contain material misrepresentations or omissions and that the alleged error by defense counsel at the suppression hearing could not have prejudiced the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we affirm.

The following facts are taken from the trial court's orders on the defendant's suppression motion and his motion for a new trial or are otherwise supported by the record. In 2018, the defendant and Castro traveled to Florida and purchased three pieces of jewelry: (1) a necklace worth $63,138 (hereinafter, the large necklace); (2) a necklace worth $4,500 (hereinafter, the small necklace); and (3) a bracelet worth $16,050. The defendant and Castro share a home. Following the purchases, the defendant took out an insurance policy with Phoenix Insurance Company, also known as Travelers Insurance, on all three pieces of jewelry.

In January 2019, the defendant filed an insurance claim with Travelers Insurance for the small necklace and bracelet. He stated that he removed the two pieces of jewelry while showering at a friend's house and mistakenly left the jewelry behind. When he later returned to retrieve the two items, he discovered that they were missing. Travelers Insurance paid the claim in March. In May, the defendant filed a second claim with Travelers Insurance alleging that the large necklace had been stolen during an armed robbery in Boston.

Travelers Insurance ultimately denied the second claim due to the defendant's non-cooperation and referred the case to the New Hampshire Insurance Department (Department), indicating that it believed the insurance claim to be suspicious. After reviewing the claims file, an investigator with the Department opened a criminal investigation. During the investigation, the investigator learned that Castro had twice pawned a bracelet identical to the one reported missing in the first insurance claim. At the time of the investigation, the bracelet remained at the pawn shop.

In December 2019, the investigator interviewed Castro after he obtained approval for a one-party intercept in order to record the interview. Castro described the three pieces of jewelry and alleged that they were all either missing or stolen. She stated that she had an older bracelet at her house similar to the one that went missing but that she had never insured the older bracelet due to its age. She also stated that she had never pawned the older bracelet. Once confronted with the evidence obtained from the pawn shop however, Castro changed her story and stated that the bracelet at the pawn shop was the older bracelet that she previously claimed was at her house. At that point Castro's demeanor changed, and she became less responsive to the investigator's questions. The investigator challenged Castro's story, noting that the pawned bracelet was identical to the bracelet that had been reported missing and that Castro's story about the two identical bracelets was difficult to believe. Castro began rummaging in her purse for her keys and the interview ended soon thereafter.

The investigator referred his investigation to the New Hampshire Department of Justice (DOJ). He documented his investigation in an affidavit that the DOJ used to apply for a warrant to search the defendant, Castro, and their residence for the two missing necklaces. In January 2020, the application was granted and the warrant was executed. During the search officers discovered drugs in the defendant's bedroom. The search was halted and an expanded warrant was obtained, seeking drugs and other instrumentalities of drug distribution. Thereafter, officers discovered additional drugs, drug paraphernalia, multiple firearms, and one of the missing necklaces. The defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell and numerous counts of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon. The defendant was separately charged with three counts of insurance fraud in connection with the claims he made to Travelers Insurance.

In both cases, the defendant filed motions to suppress the evidence discovered during the searches.^[1] The defendant argued that the affidavit supporting the first search warrant was deficient for several reasons, including that it contained material misrepresentations or omissions, and when such challenged portions were excised, the affidavit failed to establish probable cause. The State objected to both motions. Following a hearing, the court issued an order in June 2021 denying both motions to suppress. In July, after a three-day jury trial, the defendant was convicted on one count of possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell and seven counts of felon in possession of a firearm.

In April 2022, the defendant, represented by different counsel, moved for a new trial on the ground that his trial counsel for the possession charges was constitutionally ineffective by failing to introduce certain evidence in connection with the pretrial suppression proceeding. The State objected. In July, the court held a hearing on the motion and, the following month, issued an order concluding that the defendant's trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective and denying the defendant's motion. This appeal followed.

The defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because "[t]he search warrant affidavit contained misrepresentations and omissions sufficiently material to undermine the finding of probable cause," in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 19; U.S. CONST. amend. IV. We first address the defendant's claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid in our analysis. State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231-33 (1983).

Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution requires that search warrants be supported by probable cause. State v. Page, 172 N.H. 46, 50 (2019). To establish probable cause, the affiant need only present the magistrate with sufficient facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the evidence or contraband sought will be found in the place to be searched. State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 185 (2004). We review the trial court's ruling on probable cause de novo, except with respect to any controlling factual findings. Id. We assign great deference to the court's determination of probable cause and do not invalidate a warrant by interpreting the evidence submitted in a hypertechnical sense. Id.

"[A] facially sufficient but misrepresentative affidavit cannot be the basis for a search warrant as the magistrate will not have been able to make the requisite determination of probable cause." State v. Spero, 117 N.H. 199, 204 (1977). To suppress evidence seized under a search warrant, the defendant must show that the misrepresentations in the supporting affidavit were material and were "made intentionally or recklessly." Id. at 205. In addition to misstatements, omissions can also be construed as misrepresentations. State v. Gubitosi, 151 N.H. 764, 768 (2005). Materiality is determined by whether, if the omitted statements were included, there would still be probable cause. Id. Whether an affidavit contains a misrepresentation and whether the misrepresentation was material are questions of law, which this court decides de novo. State v. Stern, 150 N.H. 705, 710-11 (2004).

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there were no material misrepresentations or omissions sufficient to undermine a finding of probable cause. The defendant argues that the affidavit failed to reference a police interview documenting that the defendant's friend corroborated the defendant's account of the loss of the small necklace and bracelet. The defendant also argues that the affidavit misrepresented: (1) the defendant's and Castro's finances; (2) Castro's willingness to provide her address to the investigator; and (3) how the interview ended.

In its order on the defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not contain any material misrepresentations or omissions that rendered the warrant invalid. Regarding the investigator's failure to mention the friend's corroboration, the court ruled any such omission was immaterial to a finding of probable cause. The court reasoned that it was unclear what value the friend's account would provide given that the defendant did not provide any information to demonstrate the friend's reliability and that the alleged loss occurred outside the friend's presence. Furthermore, even if the friend's account was exculpatory, the court found that the inculpatory information as to the claimed existence of a second bracelet identical to the one that had been lost still established probable cause to search for the two missing necklaces.

Regarding the alleged misrepresentations of Castro's statements...