Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gretchen A. Haffer, Petitioner v. New Hampshire

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0100, State of New Hampshire v.

Gretchen A. Haffer, the court on October 13, 2017, issued the

following order:

Supreme Court Rule 22(2) provides that a party filing a motion for

rehearing or reconsideration shall state with particularity the points of law or

fact that she claims the court has overlooked or misapprehended.

We have reviewed the claims made in the motion for rehearing or

reconsideration and conclude that no points of law or fact were overlooked or

misapprehended in our decision. Accordingly, upon reconsideration, we affirm

our September 15, 2017 decision and deny the relief requested in the motion.

Relief requested in motion for

rehearing or reconsideration

denied.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ

concurred.

Eileen Fox,

Clerk

Distribution:

6th N.H. Circuit Court Franklin District Division, 437-2016-CR-01 173

Honorable James M. Carroll

Ms. Gretchen Haffer

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Allison R. Cook, Supreme Court

File

-

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0100, State of New Hampshire v.

Gretchen A. Haffer, the court on September 15, 2017, issued the

following order:

The motion for permission to file supplemental briefs is denied.

Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record

submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this

case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Gretchen A. Haffer, appeals her conviction, following a

bench trial in Circuit Court (Carroll, J.), on a charge of following too closely. See

RSA 265:25 (2014). We construe her brief to argue that: (1) the evidence was

insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) the fine exceeded that authorized

by statute.

We first address the sufficiency of the evidence. To prevail upon a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that

no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences

from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt. State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 677 (2016). In such a

challenge, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. Id. Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim

of legal error, our standard of review is de novo. l. We defer to the trial court's

credibility determinations unless no reasonable person could have come to the

same conclusion after we

the testimony. Statev. Livingston, 153 N.H. 399,

402 (2006).

RSA 265:25, I, prohibits the driver of a vehicle from following another

vehicle "more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the

speed of such vehicles." According to the parties' agreed statement of facts, the

police officer who stopped the defendant testified that, prior to the stop, he was

traveling 35 miles per hour and the defendant was driving so closely behind his

vehicle that he could not see her license plate or headlights in his rear-view

mirror. He further testified that, using passing signposts to measure, he

determined that the defendant was less than one second behind him. The trial

court found the officer's testimony "extremely credible." The defendant testified

that she was traveling at 25 miles per hour and was at least five feet behind the

officer's vehicle.

At 35 miles per hour, the vehicles wer

e traveling approximately 51 feet per

second. Even if the trial court accepte

d the defendant's testimony that the

vehicles were traveling 25 miles per hou

r, they were moving approximately 37

feet per second. Thus, viewing the evid

ence in the light most favorable to the

State, we conclude that the trial court

could have reasonably -found that the

defendant was following the officer's veh

icle "more closely than [was] reasonable

and prudent, having due regard for the

speed of such vehicles." RSA 265:25.

We next address whether the fine was

excessive. Pursuant to RSA 265:25,

IV, the fine for driving too closely is $10

0. Pursuant to RSA 188-F:31, I (Supp.

2016), "a penalty assessment of $2 or

24 percent, whichever is greater" shall

be

added to every fine for a criminal offense

. Thus, the $124 fine imposed here was

proper. We note that the trial court sus

pended the fine for "1 yr. good behavio

r."

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, Bassett

, and Hantz Marconi, JJ.,

concurred.

Eileen Fox,

Clerk

Distribution:

6th N.H. Circuit Court Franklin Dis

trict Division, 437-2016-CR-01 173

Honorable James M. Carroll

Honorable Edwin W. Kelly

Ms. Gretchen Haffer

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Timothy A. Gudas, Supreme Court

Allison R. Cook, Supreme Court

File

-

2.

Additional material

from this filing Itis

available in the

Clerk's Office.