3 X. APPENDIX

A. SPECIAL FINDINGS FORM.…………………… ………………

244

B. SPECIAL VERDICT FORM.………………………..…… …….

. 249 PER CURIAM. The defendant, M ichael Addison, was convicted in Superior Court (McGuire, J.) of the capital murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs and sentenced to death. This is the first death sentence imposed in New Hampshire since the enactment of the current statutory scheme in 1977. See Laws 1977, 440:2. The defen dant a ppeals his conviction and his sentence. Sup. Ct. R. 7. The capita l sentencin g statut e also requires independent review by this court when a defendant has been sentenced to death. RSA 630:5, X-XII (2007). On appeal, the defendant contends that numerous errors undermine his conviction and sentence. This opinio n addresses each of t he twenty-two issu es

briefed by the defendant. Regarding his capital murder trial, the defendant’s

claims of error relate to venue, peremptory challenges and challenges for cause to prospective jurors, prior crimes evidence under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the jury in struction on r easonable doubt . Regarding

sentencing, the defendant’s claims of error relate to his custodial statement,

victim impact evidence, evidence of conditions of confinement, evidence of and jury instruction o n mode of execution, prior cri mes evidence, and closing argument. He also raises several constitu tional and sta tutory issues that relate to the constitution ality of the capital punishment statute, the narrowing function of the statutory aggravating factors, the statutory burdens of proof, the inapplicability of the rules of evidence, the impact of race in capital

sentencing, the process of “death qualifying” the jury, the non

-statutory a

ggravating factors’ compliance with certain constitutional requirements, and

his post-verdict request for discovery. In addition, we are statutori ly required to address: (1) whether th e sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any

other arbitrary factor; (2) whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of an

aggravating circumstan ce, as authorized by law; and (3) whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considerin g both the crime and the defendant. RSA 630:5, XI. Only the first two statutory questions are before us at this stage of the proceeding; we will address the third question after further briefing and oral argument. With respect to the issues raised by the defendant on appeal, we find no

reversible error . Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s

conviction for capital murder. Furthermore, we co nclude that t he sentence of deat h was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor,