The New Hampshire Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of Richard Rosen, who was found guilty of voting in more than one state during the 2016 election. The court ruled that the trial court made significant errors in admitting evidence of Rosen's voting history and excluding testimony from a potential alternative perpetrator. This decision has implications for how voter fraud cases are handled in the state.
The case, State v. Rosen, 2024-0509, centers around Rosen's alleged voting in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts during the November 8, 2016 general election. The ruling, issued on April 9, 2026, is significant as it addresses the legal standards for admitting evidence in voter fraud cases and the rights of defendants to present alternative explanations for their actions.
Rosen, who had residences in both Holderness, New Hampshire, and Belmont, Massachusetts, was charged after an investigation revealed that he was registered to vote in both states. The state argued that he had cast ballots in both locations during the same election year, which is a violation of New Hampshire law. Rosen contested the charges, arguing that the evidence against him was improperly admitted and that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense.
The dispute began when the state sought to introduce Rosen's voting history from 1996 to 2018 as evidence of a pattern of behavior. Rosen's defense team objected, claiming that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court allowed the evidence, stating it was relevant to show intent and opportunity. However, the Supreme Court found that the admission of this evidence was a mistake.
The court stated, "The danger of unfair prejudice was significant," and noted that the evidence of Rosen's past voting behavior could lead jurors to assume he had a propensity to commit voter fraud. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh the risks of prejudice against Rosen.
Additionally, the court addressed the exclusion of testimony from William Botelho, an acquaintance of Rosen who had previously admitted to voting in Rosen's name. Rosen's defense argued that Botelho's statements should have been allowed as evidence of an alternative perpetrator. The trial court had ruled that Botelho's statements were inadmissible under the rules governing evidence, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It stated that Botelho's confession was relevant to the case and should have been considered.
The court ruled, "Evidence that Botelho voted in the defendant’s name in Belmont during the November 2016 election is not evidence that the person acted in conformity with prior bad acts," indicating that the trial court's ruling was overly broad and failed to consider the relevance of Botelho's potential testimony.
This ruling has broader implications for future voter fraud cases in New Hampshire. It highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants have the opportunity to present a full defense, including evidence that may point to alternative explanations for their actions. The court's decision reinforces the principle that defendants should not be convicted based on prejudicial evidence that does not directly relate to the crime charged.
Moving forward, the case will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. Rosen's conviction has been reversed, and he may face a retrial where the previously excluded evidence could be admitted. The court's ruling also raises questions about how similar cases will be handled in the future, particularly regarding the admissibility of evidence related to a defendant's past behavior and the rights of defendants to present alternative explanations.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the state may seek to challenge this ruling or prepare for a retrial. The outcome of this case could influence how courts interpret evidence in voter fraud cases and the rights of defendants in New Hampshire and beyond.