#

New Hampshire’s only death row inmate wants his sentence for killing a police officer commuted, and his clemency quest may become part of this year’s election.

Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs was murdered 18 years ago, leaving behind a wife and young children. His killer, Michael “Stix” Addison, was quickly caught, tried, and convicted of capital murder. The woman who prosecuted the case and sought the death penalty, Kelly Ayotte, could be the next governor. 

Addison, 44, was in Merrimack Superior Court in Concord on Monday seeking to have the death sentence imposed by the original unanimous jury overturned.

Ayotte told NHJournal on Monday she still believes Addison should face the ultimate punishment for murdering Michael Briggs.

“As attorney general, I sought a death sentence for Michael Addison for his cold-blooded murder of Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs. The jury found Addison guilty of capital murder and imposed the death sentence. I testified against the repeal of the death penalty, and I still believe that he should be executed for killing Officer Briggs,” Ayotte said.

Despite having served as mayor of Manchester, the city Officer Briggs served, Democrat Joyce Craig has said little about Addison’s attempt to avoid the death sentence.

Craig would not respond to a request for comment from NHJournal about the convicted murderer’s request for leniency. When asked by WMUR if she supported clemency for Addison, she gave a one-word reply:

“No.”

Manchester’s crime problem on her watch, along with homelessness and opioid addiction, have emerged as key issues in the campaign for governor. Those issues plagued her time as mayor and helped get Republican Jay Ruais elected last year. 

Addison’s attorney, Jon Cioschi, pointed to New Hampshire’s decision to repeal the death penalty in 2019 (HB 455) in his current arguments for commutation. Cioschi said the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the United States Constitution.

But Assistant Attorney General Audriana Mekula said in court that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already weighed in on Addison’s case, upholding the death sentence.

“As it stands, the historical and textual analysis is the way to look at this, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already held that the sentence, the death penalty, in general and as applied to this particular petitioner, is constitutional,” Mekula said.

The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in a 2013 ruling, and in a 2015 sentence review. Both rulings found Addison’s death sentence does not violate the Constitution and that the sentence is appropriate.

“We conclude that the defendant’s sentence is neither excessive nor disproportionate and, accordingly, affirm his sentence of death,” the Supreme Court ruled in 2015.

But Cioschi said the 2019 repeal law is evidence New Hampshire no longer supports the death penalty and imposing death on Addison violates the will of the people.

“HB 455, the repeal, is clear, reliable, objective evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in New Hampshire.” Cioschi said. 

While the legislature voted to pass HB 455, Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed the law, saying it represented a miscarriage of justice for Briggs and his surviving family.

“This bill is an injustice to not only Officer Briggs and his family, but to law enforcement and victims of violent crime around the state,” Sununu said at the time.

The legislature voted to override the veto, however, and the repeal became law more than 20 years after Addison was sentenced to die by lethal injection.

Addison and his partner in crime, Antoine Bell-Rodgers, had pulled off three violent armed robberies in the days before Briggs was murdered. On Oct. 16, 2006, Briggs and fellow Manchester Police Officer John Breckenridge responded to a report of a fight at the home of Bell-Rodgers and Addison. 

The two men allegedly tried to leave when they saw the officers, but Briggs ordered the pair to stop. Bell-Rodgers did stop, but Addison kept walking away. Briggs again ordered him to stop, and that was when Addison turned around and shot Briggs in the head. Briggs, at that point, had not upholstered his pistol. Addison fled the state, and was later caught in Dorchester, Mass.

Bell-Rodgers is currently serving a 60-years-to-life sentence for his role. 

During his appeal, Addison argued that his difficult childhood, including a drug addicted mother who abused him, were mitigating factors in the crime. Addison was 26 when he killed Briggs. 

Not mentioned in Addison’s litany of mitigating factors is the fact he knew Briggs before the murder. In 2003, Briggs saved his life, giving Addison first aid after Addison was shot by another man in Manchester. 

Judge Daniel St. Hilaire ordered both sides to provide more information for their arguments. The next hearing is set for October.

New Hampshire’s Republican-controlled legislature has taken a principled conservative stand in voting to repeal the state’s death penalty. It is part of a growing trend across the country of GOP lawmakers, as well as rank and file conservatives like myself, deciding that capital punishment is a failed government program that should be ended. Driving this change is a commitment to fiscal responsibility, life, and liberty.

Perhaps nowhere in America is the ethos against unjust actions by government stronger than in New Hampshire. The state motto “Live Free or Die” reflects an inherent mistrust of government authority and the death penalty provides ample reason for concern. To date, more than 160 people have been freed from death rows across the country due to wrongful convictions. Time and again while debating death penalty repeal, New Hampshire legislators cited innocence and the fallibility of the system as reasons for voting to end capital punishment. They know that once an innocent person is executed their liberty can never be restored.

Valuing life is also at the core of why so many conservative Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire and elsewhere are turning against the death penalty. As pro-life people, we truly want to build a culture of life and be consistent in our beliefs – specifically that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.  For us, as Christians, it is a matter of faith. We do not want risk interfering with God’s processes and preempting any chance of redemption.

Moreover, valuing life includes a commitment to the families of murder victims in the aftermath of violence. The death penalty does not address those needs and instead submits families to an agonizing and lengthy process that promises an execution at the beginning, but often results in a different sentence in the end.

Along with issues of life and liberty, capital punishment in New Hampshire has also been a stunningly wasteful program. The Granite State has not executed anyone since 1939, and yet it has spent millions of dollars on the death penalty. Even if executions had taken place, there is still no escaping the reality – based on numerous cost studies – that the death penalty process, with its exorbitant trial costs and lengthy appeals, costs more than the alternative already in place: life without parole.

The tide is turning. In fact, the number of Republican state legislators sponsoring death penalty repeal bills nationwide has increased tenfold since the year 2000. They have discovered the death penalty does not protect innocent life, it does not protect liberty, and it does not save money. They have learned that the death penalty is anything but conservative.