Background
Justin Sales was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated felonious sexual assault-domestic violence, stalking-domestic violence, indirect criminal contempt, witness tampering, criminal restraint, and several assault offenses. The evidence showed that, after drinking and arguing with the victim, Sales choked, struck, and bit her. Shortly afterward, the victim engaged in oral sex and intercourse with Sales because she was afraid of further violence.
After his arrest, a trial court ordered Sales detained pending trial and included a no-contact provision concerning the victim. While jailed, Sales made numerous calls and sent texts to the victim, including communications encouraging her to lie to police, withhold information, and avoid testifying.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the aggravated-felonious-sexual-assault convictions. A rational jury could find that the victim was unlawfully confined through fear arising from the immediately preceding violence and that her apparent acquiescence did not establish consent. The evidence permitted the jury to conclude that she feared refusing sexual contact would trigger further assaults.
The court reversed the seven stalking and six indirect-criminal-contempt convictions. Under the version of RSA 597:2 applicable when the bail orders issued, a court could impose conditions such as no contact on a defendant released pending trial, but not on a defendant detained pending trial. Because those charges depended on a valid no-contact condition imposed under that statute, the evidence was insufficient to support them. The court otherwise rejected Sales’s unpreserved double-jeopardy claims, including his challenge to multiple witness-tampering convictions.
Key Takeaways
- Fear produced by an immediately preceding assault can support findings of confinement and lack of consent in an AFSA prosecution.
- The former version of RSA 597:2 did not authorize no-contact conditions for a defendant detained rather than released pending trial.
- Each separate attempt to induce a witness to lie or withhold information may constitute a separate witness-tampering offense.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes pretrial release conditions from detention orders under the prior bail statute. Prosecutors cannot sustain stalking or criminal-contempt charges premised on a no-contact condition that the statute did not authorize for a detained defendant.
At the same time, the ruling confirms that a victim’s statements characterizing sexual activity as consensual do not foreclose conviction when the surrounding evidence shows submission from fear after violence.