## Facts

- Arthur J. Burley and his ex-wife, Debbie Glines, had reconciled and were living together.
- On January 7, 1989, Burley drank at least six beers between noon and 6:00 p.m.
- Around 6:30 p.m., Burley called 911 for an ambulance; police found Glines on the kitchen floor with a gunshot wound to the right side of her head, from which she later died.
- Burley initially stated the shooting was accidental and occurred while he was cleaning a .22 caliber semi-automatic handgun.
- During police questioning, Burley gave inconsistent accounts, including acknowledging he had loaded the gun and made it ready to fire.
- Burley later admitted he was “fooling around” with the gun while positioned near the kitchen entryway, with the gun pointed toward Glines.
- Trial evidence showed Burley was familiar with firearms, knew the handgun was loaded and cocked, knew Glines was in the adjacent room, and had his finger in the trigger housing while the gun was pointed into the room Glines occupied.

## Issues

1. Whether the second-degree murder indictment was constitutionally insufficient for failing to allege additional specific facts describing Burley’s reckless conduct.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Burley acted “under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life” under RSA 630:1-b, I(b).
3. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury it must unanimously acquit on the charged offense before considering lesser-included offenses.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction.
- The indictment challenge was not preserved because it was raised for the first time on appeal; in any event, the indictment was constitutionally sufficient.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find extreme indifference to human life.
- The jury-instruction claim was waived because Burley did not request an alternative instruction and did not properly brief the objection on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it states the charge with enough specificity to permit trial preparation and protect against double jeopardy; it need not plead detailed evidentiary facts once the offense is identified with factual specificity.
- On sufficiency review, evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the State; a verdict stands unless no rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether conduct reflects “extreme indifference to the value of human life” under RSA 630:1-b, I(b) is for the jury based on the facts; reckless handling of a loaded, cocked firearm pointed toward another person, coupled with drinking and admitted horseplay, can support that element.
- Appellate review generally requires preservation in the trial court; failure to request an alternative jury instruction or adequately brief an instructional objection can result in waiver.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Burley’s second-degree murder conviction, holding that the indictment provided adequate notice and double-jeopardy protection, the evidence permitted a finding of extreme indifference to human life, and the challenge to the “acquittal-first” lesser-included-offense instruction was not preserved for appellate review.


State v. Burley, 137 N.H. 286, 627 A.2d 98 (1993)