Cited by

State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246 (2003); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).

Accordingly, to the extent that he seeks to raise a constitutional issue on appeal, we conclude that it is not preserved.

Because the defendants did not raise this issue with the trial court, we conclude that the issue is not preserved for our review.

Similar to the defendant in State v. Winstead, who testified that he “unlocked the door, sat in the driver’s seat, pushed the clutch in, moved the gear selector to neutral, started the engine and turned on the heater,” the defendant in this case testified that he put his keys in the ignition and turned the car on.

Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for review.

To have “actual physical control” of a motor vehicle, a person must have the capacity bodily to guide or exercise dominion over the vehicle at the present time.

Assuming, without deciding, that this issue is preserved for review, but see State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246 (2003) (constitutional issue must be brought to trial court’s attention to preserve issue for appeal), the record shows that the trial court allowed the defendant to cross-examine the State’s witnesses about the fact that they communicated with one another about their observations before they spoke with the polic

When the defendant raises a constitutional claim, it must be brought to the attention of the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246 (2003) (quotation omitted).

We have consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.

We have “consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the [trial] court.” State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246 (2003) (quotation omitted).

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Further, the record indicates that the defendant did not specifically object to the State’s characterization of the substance of Boudreau’s opinion.