The Wrong Way to Handle a Neighbor Property Dispute in New Hampshire

‍Conflicts between neighbors are inevitable, particularly when property lines, access, or use of land come into question. What begins as a late-night disturbance or perceived trespass can quickly escalate when emotions take over and judgment gives way to reaction. In this recent New Hampshire case a landowner’s angry voicemail turned a civil disagreement into a criminal case that found its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Background

The defendant owned property on an island in Lake Winnipesaukee. A youth camp also owned property on the island, and the parties had a history of disputes.

Late one evening, the defendant awoke to voices and lights near his home and believed camp counselors had trespassed onto his land. After the group retreated, he left a voicemail for the camp stating, among other things, “You better get them the f**k out of here or I will shoot them.”

The State charged him with criminal harassment, alleging he communicated a threat to the life or safety of another with the purpose to annoy or alarm. ‍

Superior Court

The trial focused on the defendant’s words and intent. The jury heard the voicemail recording, testimony about prior conflicts between the defendant and the camp, and testimony from camp officials and law enforcement. In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, the judge concluded a rational juror could find the defendant acted with the required purpose to annoy or alarm.

The judge also permitted testimony from the camp director describing security measures taken in response to the voicemail, including closure of part of the island property and increased security procedures.

During deliberations, the jury asked for a definition of “threat” and whether a conditional statement could qualify. The judge instructed that a conditional statement may constitute a threat if it has a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that the speaker will act in accordance with its terms.

The jury convicted the defendant. 

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The voicemail’s language and tone, the parties’ history, and the defendant’s own testimony allowed a rational juror to find he acted with the purpose to annoy or alarm and communicated a true threat.

However, the Court ruled the trial court erred by admitting detailed testimony about the camp’s security measures. While the camp’s immediate reaction was relevant, evidence describing shutdowns and expanded security carried limited probative value and a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

Even when a trial court makes an error, a conviction will stand unless the appellate court concludes the mistake likely affected the outcome of the case. Because the case turned on intent and credibility, the Court could not conclude the error was harmless, so it reversed and remanded for a new trial.

‍The Court also clarified that conditional threats can qualify as true threats if they reasonably create apprehension, and that recklessness as to how the statement will be perceived satisfies constitutional requirements.

At its core, this was a potential trespass or nuisance dispute, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court, it no longer was about land. It was about criminal law and procedure driven by a moment of lost control.

‍ ‍

State v. Owen, 2026 N.H. 5.

For assistance with real estate, nuisance claims and civil litigation matters, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form.  The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.