Cited by

The trial court adopted the analysis set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), “accept[ing] that” this court “would likely adopt the same test in this scenario” because we “already adopted the test” in State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394 (2009).

Under both our own and the United States Supreme Court’s precedent, “the confrontation clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial, which must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case.” State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 403 (2009) (quotations omitted).

The State bears the burden of proving that an error is harmless.

State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 401-02 (2009); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986) (recognizing that a violation of the Federal Confrontation Clause is subject to harmless-error analysis); State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47-48 (2014) (applying harmless error 3 review to admission of

are not the “same” for double jeopardy purposes, “the absence of any good reason not to [have brought] the second degree assault charge in the first trial should deprive the State of the opportunity to bring it after [she] was acquitted at that trial.” Consistent with our policy of deciding cases on constitutional grounds only when necessary, we address the defendant’s alternative argument first.

State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 401-02 (2009) (applying harmless error review to admission of evidence in violation of State and Federal Confrontation Clauses).

“When reviewing jury instructions, we evaluate allegations of error by interpreting the disputed instructions in their entirety, as a reasonable juror would have understood them, and in light of all the evidence in the case.” State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 400 (2009).

In relation to this evidence, Busch’s testimony was inconsequential and cumulative.

State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 401-02 (2009) (applying harmless error review to admission of evidence in violation of State and Federal Confrontation Clauses).

bout when a person is entitled to use non-deadly force, the jury was unable to properly judge whether [the defendant’s] admitted force could be legally justified or could only be used to determine whether the elements of the offense had been proven.” Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of the instruction, are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

When reviewing jury instructions, we determine whether the instructions adequately and accurately explain each element of the offense and reverse only if the instructions did not fairly cover the issues of law arising in the case.

“The purpose of the trial court’s charge is to state and explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the rules of law applicable to the case.” State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 400 (2009).

Jury Instructions “The purpose of the trial court’s charge is to state and explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the rules of law applicable to the case.” State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 400 (2009).

An error is harmless only if it is determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by the error.

An error is harmless only if it is determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by the error.

Under that standard, we evaluate allegations of error by interpreting the disputed instructions in then-entirety, as a reasonable juror would have understood them, and in light of all the evidence in the case.