New Hampshire v. Demond-Surace
Annotate this CaseDefendant Marilyn Demond-Surace appealed her conviction on two counts of vehicular assault. Defendant’s convictions stem from a 2005 motor vehicle accident that killed two people. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to exclude all evidence related to blood alcohol tests because those tests were taken without Defendant’s consent, but denied Defendant’s motion to preclude the State from introducing evidence regarding her alcohol consumption. During the motion hearing the State said it did not have any witnesses that would testify to Defendant’s impairment. In ruling on the motions, the court said, “as far as the jury is going to know, [Defendant] was sober.” On appeal, Defendant’s arguments largely focused on the court’s order to the State to “stay away from impairment.” Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial for statements made by the State in its closing argument on the impairment issue. The Supreme Court found that “[i]n allowing evidence that the Defendant consumed alcohol despite having excluded all evidence that the Defendant was impaired by alcohol, the court made a distinction unsupported by our case law.” The Court reversed the lower court and remanded Defendant’s case for a new trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.