Cited by

This requirement is particularly appropriate when an alleged error involves a jury instruction.

We review trial court decisions on the management of discovery under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

rial court further determined that “the defendant [had] not articulated an essential need for in camera review of the school counselor’s records, particularly in light of the police report addressing the reported disclosure and the contents of the disclosure, as alleged.” We review trial court decisions on the management of discovery under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

In contrast, here, the prosecutor’s question was a permissible response to defense counsel’s closing argument.

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.

The defendant further argues that the court “repeatedly refused to allow either party to talk about the circumstances surrounding the original stalking or subsequent events.” We review the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

We review the trial court’s decisions on the management of discovery and the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 694-95 (2005); State v. Gaffney, 147 N.H. 550, 556-57 (2002).

“[T]he prosecutor’s comments here were a permissible response to defense counsel’s closing argument.” State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 698 (2005).

“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial, we recognize that the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue and has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is appropriate.” State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 698 (2005).

“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial, we recognize that the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue and has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is 6 appropriate.” State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 698 (2005).

“To meet this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 694 (2005).

State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 696 (2005) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed under unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and will be upheld unless defendant demonstrates that they were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case).

We will not overturn the trial court’s decision on whether a mistrial or other remedial action is necessary absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 698 (2005).

The trial court is in the best position to gauge any prejudicial effect that the prosecutor’s conduct had on the jury and has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is warranted.

ns of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.

We review the trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Mailhot v. C & R Const. Co., 128 N.H. 323, 325 (1986); see State v. Ainsworth, 151 N.H. 691, 693 (2005) (finding necessary a contemporaneous objection to preserve a jury instruction issue for appellate review).

Requiring defense counsel to contemporaneously object to the trial court’s failure to provide such a limiting instruction abides by our well-established policy of affording the trial court the opportunity to correct error in the first instance, a policy that is grounded in common sense and judicial economy.

We review the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision upon something other than the established propositions in the case.

We review the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.