Cited by

Although, in light of our decision reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial we need not address the defendant’s remaining arguments, because the hearsay issue is likely to arise again on remand, we address it below.

Martin, 171 N.H. at 593; State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 25-26 (2003) (describing the right to counsel and the right to self-representation as “antithetical”); State v. Barham, 126 N.H. 631, 636 (1985) (“This right to self-representation does not coexist with that of a defendant to be represented by counsel.

State v. Russo, 164 N.H. 585, 593 (2013); State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 26 (2003) (trial court committed structural error by providing unwanted representation to defendant who had unequivocally waived his right to counsel).

In assessing alleged violations of the juror selection statute, we first determine whether the actions complained of constituted violations of the statutory jury selection procedures, see RSA ch. 500-A (2010 & Supp. 2016), and then consider whether any deviations from the statutory procedure, taken as a whole, resulted in substantial noncompliance with the statute.

1998) (“An issue conceded in a lower court may not be argued on appeal.”); cf. State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 29 (2003) (State conceded issue at oral argument on appeal and therefore we were “foreclosed” from considering it).

Under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant is guaranteed the right of self-representation as well as the right to counsel.

State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 21 (2003) (“When trial courts have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court, the preservation requirement is satisfied.”).

State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 21 (2003) (“When trial courts have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court, the preservation requirement is satisfied.”).

State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 24 (2003) (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308-12 (1991)).

Here, faced with a timely, unequivocal and clear request to represent himself, the trial court’s failure to inquire further constituted structural error requiring automatic reversal and a new trial.

The defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of substantial noncompliance with the jury selection statutes.

Ct. R. 38, Canon 3E(1); see also State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 35 (2003), cert.

An argument is properly preserved if the trial court has the “opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 21 (2003).

State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 24-25 (2003) (applying the federal distinction between a “structural defect” and a “trial error,” and holding that denial of a defendant’s right to self-representation is a “structural defect”), cert.

VI, XIV, he does not develop a federal constitutional analysis and, thus, we address only his State constitutional claim.

This allows the trial court to consider errors as they occur and *666 remedy them as necessary.

That conviction was reversed on appeal.

State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 24 (2003) (discussion of distinction between structural defect and trial error).

Both Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to self-representation and the right to counsel.

at 307-09; see State v. Ayer, 150 N.H. 14, 24 (2003).