Cited by

“The rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 524 (2009) (quotation omitted).

In both instances, the juror may base his or her decision upon evidence that the defendant never had any opportunity to examine and present to the jury.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 522 (2009).

A defendant has a right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury.

Evans, 164 N.H. at 572 (“[We will not] add language that the *204 legislature did not see fit to include.”); State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 521 (2009) (“[I]t is the province of the legislature to enact laws defining crimes.

Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.

We applied Burgess in State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511 (2009), where we held that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights by concluding that he lacked remorse because he admitted committing the acts underlying the charged crimes, but maintained that the incident was an accident.

“If a statute is ambiguous, however, we consider legislative history to aid our analysis.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009).

We will not consider “what the legislature might have said nor add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009).

We will not consider “what the legislature might have said nor add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009).

Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.

State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009); see RSA 21:2 (2000).

State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009); see RSA 21:2 (2000).

We look to the Model Penal Code commentaries for guidance.

We interpret a statute in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation.

“We review a trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009).

We have recognized that our Criminal Code is largely derived from the Model Penal Code; we have, therefore, looked to the Model Penal Code and its Commentaries when interpreting analogous New Hampshire statutes.

We are the final arbiters of the legislative intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

“We review a trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009).

State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 524 (2009); State v. Panarello, 157 N.H. 204, 207 (2008).

Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.

Thus, to fall within the plain error rule: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” State v. Lamy, 158 N.H. 511, 515 (2009) (citations omitted).