Mistrial declared in Sapry case; reason unknown

LACONIA — The murder-insanity trial of Hassan Sapry ended in a mistrial Wednesday morning for undisclosed reasons.

Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Leonard informed the jury of her decision shortly after they took their seats in the jury box of the main courtroom of Belknap Superior Court.

The judge told the jurors that she had declared a mistrial due to “unforeseen issues.”

The trial had been on hold since Monday without explanation.

“I cannot explain the reason for the mistrial,” Leonard told the jurors. “Those reasons are not public. I'm not at liberty to basically tell you, which I know can be frustrating.”

While the judge did not disclose the reason for the mistrial, there are indications Sapry’s mental state may well have played a role.

After declaring the mistrial, Leonard issued an order that Sapry undergo a competency evaluation, and scheduled a hearing for Oct. 20, to deal with competency, according to court records. The order, like another which Leonard issued Monday, is sealed and so its contents cannot be viewed by the public.

A competency evaluation is a court-ordered mental health assessment to determine how much a defendant remembers and understands about his or her charges and alleged offense, as well as his or her capacity to understand and rationally participate in court proceedings and assist a lawyer in their defense.

Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, Sapry’s lead defense attorney, Mark Sisti, moved for a mistrial based on what he said were developments during the past 48 hours.

“There is manifest necessity to terminate this litigation,” Sisti told the judge. “Given the circumstances, a mistrial is appropriate.”

Associate Attorney General Jeffery Strelzin, the lead prosecutor in the case, objected to the motion but did not elaborate.

Leonard then said she was declaring a mistrial and asked to have the jury brought into the courtroom.

Sapry was on trial for first- and second-degree murder and other charges in the death of Wilfred Guzman Sr., who was found dead in his Blueberry Lane apartment on April 19, 2019. Authorities had concluded he died the day before in a struggle in which he was stabbed with a sword and other objects, causing 140 wounds.

Prosecutors said Sapry was angry over a conversation they had regarding race and religion.

Sapry had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Sapry was not present for Wednesday’s court session. Before court convened, co-defense counsel Wade Harwood moved the chair at the defense table in which Sapry had been sitting during last week’s testimony and jury selection the week before off to the side.

Guzman’s daughter, Natashia Guzman, and his son Wilfred Guzman Jr. sat with a group of supporters as the judge shared her decision with the jury.

Leaving the Belknap County Courthouse a short time later, Natashia declined to give any comment.

“Not at this time,” she told a reporter. “We’ll put this on pause for a later date.”

Leonard said that Sapry would be retried “at a later date,” and then thanked the jury for their service.

The mistrial was declared before the defense began to present its case, which was to include testimony from a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist concluded that Sapry’s assault and murder of Guzman was the direct result of the severe mental illness from which he suffers.

The prosecutions’ psychiatric witness, however, concluded that although Sapry suffers from mental disorders, they were not directly responsible for his actions that led to Guzman’s death.

The trial, which was expected to last two weeks, began Aug. 15.

During testimony last week, the jury heard from police and forensic experts involved in the case. They also heard a 2-hour-and-40-minute recording of Sapry speaking to two State Police investigators shortly after his arrest on April 26, 2019, during which he confessed to killing Guzman.

The prosecution rested his case last Thursday, without putting its psychiatric witness on the stand. However, court protocol would have allowed the expert witness to be called as a rebuttal witness after the defense had finished presenting its case.