Cited by

State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 429 (2009) (“[A] jury instruction that omits an element of the offense charged is an error that partially or completely denies a defendant the right to the basic trial process, and thus is not subject to harmless error analysis.” (quotation, citations, and brackets omitted)).

In addition, the defendant argues that fireworks discharge shot from gunpowder, and that “virtually anything” can be considered a deadly weapon.

In support of his contrary argument, the defendant relies primarily on our decision in State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413 (2009), wherein we interpreted the statute defining deadly weapon.

is a question of fact for the jury based upon the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 425 (2009) (citation omitted).

is not a deadly weapon per ser Mohamed, 159 N.H. at 561; see State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 427 (2009) (‘Whether the specific manner in which the defendant used the shotgun and the circumstances surrounding that use rendered the shotgun a deadly weapon is a factual issue within the exclusive province of the jury.”).

However, “[t]he interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 423 (2009).

Inasmuch as there could be no serious dispute that the defendant used his gun in a manner constituting it a deadly weapon when he pointed it at Mangini and threatened to shoot him if he did not back off, see State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 425 (2009), without proper instructions the jury could easily have assumed that if the defendant had used a deadly weapon it automatically followed that he had used deadly force.

The interpretation of a statute *653 is a question of law, which we review de novo.

“We construe provisions of the Criminal Code according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 423 (2009); see RSA 625:3 (2007).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Two interpretations of the statute are possible: either the terms “disclosed” and “circulated” are modified by “to a quorum or a majority of the members of a public body,” id., or they are not.

“Whether or not a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of the instruction, is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 422-23 (2009) (quotation omitted).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 423 (2009).

Resolution of this appeal requires statutory interpretation, which is a question of law that we review de novo.

We will uphold a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict unless its ruling was made without evidence or constituted an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

The defendant argues that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion because “identification was the central issue and Rodriguez’s identification was suspect.” Whether or not a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of the instruction, are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

id.; cf. McMinn, 141 N.H. at 645 (“when evidence of self-defense is admitted, conduct negating the defense becomes an element of the charged offense, which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt” (citation omitted)); State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 429 (2009) (reaffirming under State Constitution that a jury instruction omitting an element of the offense charged is structural error).

[w]hether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” This is a matter of statutory interpretation that we determine de novo.

We construe provisions of the Criminal Code according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 423 (2009).

State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 423 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted).

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

To succeed on his motion to set aside the verdict, the defendant has “the burden of establishing that the evidence, viewed in its entirety and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the State, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime charged.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 421 (2009).

A firearm is a deadly weapon only if, in the manner it is used, intended to be used, or threatened to be used, it is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

In State v. Kousounadis, we held that, under the State Constitution, “a jury instruction that omits an element of the offense charged is an error that partially or completely den[ies] a defendant the right to the basic trial process” and is therefore a structural error “not subject to harmless error analysis.” State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 429 (2009) (quotations and citation omitted).