Cited by

Our decision in State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239 (2009), is instructive.

State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 243-44 (2009) (holding that the defendant waived a statutory interpretation argument on appeal because, in the trial court, the defendant argued only that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction).

State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 246 (2009) (declining to address the remaining plain error prongs where there was no error).

To the contrary, it was within the province of the trial court to evaluate the defendant’s credibility and to find his account of the facts, including his claim that he thought the officer was in the process of making a traffic stop when he decided to pass the officer, “implausible.” State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 275 (2015); State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (trier of fact is in best position to measure persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not required to believe even uncontes

id.; State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (trier of fact is in best position to measure persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not required to believe even uncontested evidence).

Bean, 151 N.H. at 250; see also State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (trier of fact in best position to measure persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence).

“Under this standard, however, we still consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and examine each evidentiary item in context, not in isolation.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 246 (quotation omitted).

State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 244 (2009) (preservation requires a “contemporaneous and specific objection” and any objection not raised at trial is deemed waived (quotation omitted); see also State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 484-85 (1999).

To the extent that the defendant argues that the trial court should have believed his testimony over the trooper’s testimony, the trial court “was in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and was not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The trier of fact is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.

See, e.g., State v. Burke, 162 N.H. 459, 460-61 (2011); State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 246 (2009).

“To show that the trial court’s exercise of discretion is unsustainable, the defendant must show that the decision was clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 248-49 (2009) (quotation omitted).

State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 244 (2009) (citations omitted); cf. RSA 625:3 (2007) (“All provisions of [the Criminal Code] shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice.”).

“Preservation of an issue for appeal requires a contemporaneous and specific objection.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 244 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 243-44 (2009) (concluding that where motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence was “couched in general terms” and did not specify that it was based on statutory interpretation, the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal).

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

However, in matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

We will not reverse the trial court’s admission of evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

We defer to the trial court in determining the admissibility of evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

We will not reverse the trial court’s decision with respect to an alleged discovery violation absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 244 (2009).

‘We will not reverse the trial court’s admission of evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 248 (2009) (quotation omitted).

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

Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could have found the following facts.