Cited by

16 and the harshness of the fines.” State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 259 (2002) (brackets omitted).

State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 256 (2002) (concluding that any error in admitting uncharged gambling activity was harmless because such evidence was cumulative of other evidence that the defendant ran a gambling operation).

Part I, Article 18 of the State Constitution “provides at least as much protection against disproportionate punishment as does the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 258 (2002).

Under the State Constitution, a fine is excessive if it is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense or if the tribunal imposing the fine fails to “consider all the relevant factors necessary to the exercise of its discretion.” State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 259 (2002) (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 254-55 (2002); State v. Steed, 140 N.H. 153, 158-59 (1995); State v. Rau, 129 N.H. 126, 128 (1987); State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 213 (1979); State v. Ferbert, 113 N.H. 235, 236-38 (1973).

For a sentence to violate the New Hampshire Constitution, it must be grossly disproportionate to the crime.

place jurors in a position to judge [her] degree of inattention; [they] invited jurors to conclude that [she] was narcissistic and to judge her, in part, on that basis.” Under the unique circumstances of this case, we need not determine whether admission of the website information was error under New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, because even if it was erroneous, the error was harmless.

An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight and if the inadmissible evidence is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the State’s evidence of guilt.

An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight and if the inadmissible evidence is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s evidence of guilt.

For a sentence to violate Part I, Article 18 of the State Constitution, it must be “grossly disproportionate to the crime.” State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 259 (2002) (quotation omitted).

The evaluation of whether the State has met its burden involves consideration of the alternative evidence presented at trial and the character of the contested evidence.

If the excluded evidence is merely cumulative, we may conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not have affected the jury’s verdict.

Thus, even if this characterization was erroneous, the error was significantly limited by otherwise admissible evidence.