Cited by

State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 155 (2008) (“[A]n interpretation that renders statutory language superfluous and irrelevant is not a proper interpretation.”).

State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 157 (2008) (“Under the second.

For the second factor “we inquire into ‘the cost of a rule’s repudiation as it would fall on those who have relied reasonably on the rule’s continued application.’” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 157 (2008) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.

Stare decisis, “the idea that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions,” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015), commands great respect in a society governed by the rule of law, and we do not lightly overrule a prior opinion, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 151 (2008); see State v. Anthony, 151 N.H. 492, 493-95 (2004).

Because we must interpret the statute as a whole and presume that the legislature does not use superfluous language, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 155, 960 A.2d 697 (2008), we conclude that the speech, disclosure, and full criticism of non-confidential and non-privileged content must be discussed "publicly" to receive protection under the statute.

Because we must interpret the statute as a whole and presume that the legislature does not use superfluous language, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 155 (2008), we conclude that the speech, disclosure, and full criticism of non-confidential and non- privileged content must be discussed “publicly” to receive protection under the statute.

o “any jail or any other place” is entitled to “credit against both the maximum and minimum terms of his sentence equal to the number of days during which the prisoner was confined in jail awaiting and during trial prior to the imposition of sentence and not under any sentence of confinement.” The statute applies to time confined in another jurisdiction while awaiting extradition to New Hampshire.

State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146,155 (2008) (“[A]n interpretation that renders statutory language superfluous and irrelevant is not a proper interpretation.”).

In the alternative, the defendant urges us to “overrule King and apply the Biggers factors when the State seeks to elicit a witness’s first identification in- court.” “We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

He also notes that we will avoid an interpretation that renders a statutory term superfluous or that leads to an absurd result.

We interpret statutes to give meaning to every word and phrase.

State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 151 (2008); see RSA 626:8, III, IV (2007) (setting forth requirements for accomplice liability).

no single factor is wholly determinative,” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 154 (2008), because “the doctrine of stare decisis is not one to be either rigidly applied or blindly followed.” State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 118, 127 (2003) (quotation omitted).

“We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

While an indictment that charges the defendant as a principal puts a defendant on notice to prepare a defense as to both principal and *539 accomplice liability, State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 151 (2008), we have also “consistently stated that language in an indictment alleging that a defendant acted ‘in concert with’ another is sufficient to charge the defendant both as a principal and as an accomplice,” State v. Munson, 146 N.H. 712, 716 (2001) (quotations and ellipsis omitted).

To prevail, the defendant must show that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her case.

“We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 153 (2008).

"We do not lightly overrule a prior opinion."

the accomplice shared the requisite mental state for the offense.” State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146, 151 (2008).

When interpreting statutes, we look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning.

We will neither consider what the legislature might have said nor add words that it did not see fit to include.