Cited by

is not a violation of the CPA,” State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008); and (3) “none of Jayco’s alleged conduct rises to the level of rascality that would amount to an unfair or deceptive act within the meaning of the CPA.” The plaintiff, as the appealing party, has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s dismissal of his CPA claim against Jayco constitute

Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 390 (1996) (an ordinary breach of contract claim does not present an occasion for the remedies under the CPA); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (whether the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unfair or deceptive in violation of the CPA, as opposed to an ordinary breach of contract, was a matter for the factfinder).

See, e.g., State v. Kinne, 161 N.H. 41, 46 (2010) (noting that a petitioner can collaterally challenge an illegal sentence); State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 264 (2008) (noting, in a case challenging the trial court’s statutory authority to impose a sentence, that “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence is a serious error routinely corrected on plain error review”).

“Although the general provision of the CPA is broadly worded, not all conduct in the course of trade or commerce falls within its scope.” State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008).

I Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, see, e.g., State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 263 (2008), the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find the following facts.

I Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, see, e.g., State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 263 (2008), the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find the following facts.

I Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, see, e.g., State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 263 (2008), the evidence presented at trial established the following pertinent facts.

Supreme Court Rule 16-A allows us to exercise our discretion to consider plain errors not raised in the trial court.

“An ordinary breach of contract claim, for example, is not a violation of the CPA.” State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008).

State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 262 (2008) (construing CPA).

Although the defendant characterizes this issue as plain error, see State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 264 (2008), the State correctly points out that the defendant timely objected at trial.

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors not brought to the attention of the trial court.

Compare State v. Sideris, 157 N.H. 258, 264-65 (2008) (vacating sentence where entire sentence exceeded permissible statutory term), with Doyle, 85 N.H. at 402 (“[I]t is the rule in this jurisdiction that a sentence is not invalid even though the condition on which it is suspended may be unlawful.”).

To succeed on a motion to dismiss, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the evidence, viewed in its entirety and with all reasonable inferences drawn in the State’s favor, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime charged.