Background
Dominic Cherbonneau was with a group at a Manchester restaurant when a skirmish occurred between members of the group and C.M. After C.M. left, members of the group followed him to a pharmacy parking lot, where a verbal confrontation developed near a Hyundai. Cherbonneau initially remained apart from the confrontation and later positioned himself behind another vehicle.
Gunfire was exchanged between people near the front and rear of the Hyundai, but Cherbonneau did not fire during that initial exchange. After retreating behind the nearby vehicle, he saw C.M. or C.G. emerge from behind the Hyundai and fired toward them. He was convicted of one count of attempted first-degree assault with a firearm and two counts of riot, while being acquitted of seven other attempted-assault counts. The trial court denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which argued that the State had failed to disprove self-defense.
The Court’s Holding
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed all three convictions, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cherbonneau did not act in self-defense. The court concluded that no rational jury could find that he had a duty to retreat: there was no evidence that he lacked a right to be in the parking lot, and the conduct of his companions could not establish that Cherbonneau himself was the initial aggressor.
The court also held that the State failed to prove that Cherbonneau lacked a reasonable belief that unlawful deadly force was imminent or that his response was excessive. Cherbonneau had just observed or heard an exchange of gunfire, an armed person remained behind the Hyundai, and C.M. or C.G. emerged from concealment about twelve seconds later in a dark parking lot. Because Cherbonneau did not fire the first shots, the court also found no sufficient basis for concluding that his use of a firearm was disproportionate to the apparent danger.
Having reversed on sufficiency grounds, the court did not decide whether imposing convictions and sentences on both riot counts was erroneous. Two justices dissented, reasoning that the surveillance footage permitted a rational jury to find that the confrontation had ended before Cherbonneau fired and that his belief in an imminent threat was therefore unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- Once evidence supports self-defense, the State must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- New Hampshire’s stand-your-ground provision focuses on whether the defendant—not the defendant’s companions—was the initial aggressor.
- Surveillance video is direct evidence, but the court still reviews it with the full trial record under the ordinary sufficiency standard.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the circumstances in which a defendant may lose stand-your-ground protection based on group conduct. Even when companions initiate a confrontation, the State must prove that the defendant personally was the initial aggressor before relying on that exception to the no-retreat rule.
The ruling also shows that an earlier exchange of gunfire may sustain a reasonable perception of imminent deadly force even after a brief pause, particularly when an armed participant remains concealed and then reemerges. A dissent cautioned, however, that the majority’s analysis displaced reasonable factual inferences that should have remained with the jury.