Cited by

[¶9] “To violate RSA 318-B:26, IX, a defendant must not only engage in certain conduct (manufacturing, selling or dispensing a controlled drug), but also must cause a specified result to occur (the victim’s death from injecting, inhaling or ingesting the controlled drug).” State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 663 (2011).

We have held that a charging document “must inform the defendant of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare for trial and at the same time protect him from being put in double jeopardy a second time for the same offense.” State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 661 (2011).

State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 672 (2011) (noting, in criminal context, that “in order to obtain a new trial, a defendant must show specific prejudice to his appeal resulting from the incompleteness of the record” (quotation omitted)); Oroh v. Holder, 561 F.3d 62, 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (noting, in immigration context, that “to succeed on a claim of i

Whether a sentence enhancement must be alleged in an indictment is an open question under the State Constitution, see State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 665 (2011), and, therefore, whether counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness is unclear.

Standard of Review Because this appeal presents a question of constitutional law and statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.

We assume, without deciding, that this issue is preserved and that the characterization of the underlying offense, as a violation, misdemeanor, or felony, is an element of the crime of bail jumping, cf. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 664-65 (2011).

ercial Code, see RSA 382-A:3- 105(a) (2011), the trial court defined “issue” in the jury instructions as “the first delivery of an instrument by the maker or drawer of a check; that is, by the party who first issues the check.” Because the defendant did not object to that instruction and does not challenge the instruction on appeal, we assume without deciding that the jury instruction was correct.

As we have stated, the “question is not whether the indictment could have been more certain and comprehensive, but whether it contains the elements of the offense and enough facts to warn a defendant of the specific charges against him.” State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 661-62 (2011).

sserts that the damages recovered in the Exxon MTBE litigation “consists of all damages including the costs of a statewide testing and monitoring program, three- dimensional characterization of impacted sites, and other measures necessary to remediate MTBE.” The trial court’s rulings on questions of law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional questions, are reviewed de novo.

“When the evidence is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.” State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 666 (2011).

Because the defendant raises a question of constitutional law and statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.

The trial court’s rulings on questions of law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional questions, are reviewed de novo.

Our standard of review of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss is well established.

atements is not sufficiently specific.” Citing the Federal Constitution and Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution, he contends that such indictments are “insufficiently specific to provide fair notice, to assure jury unanimity, and to protect against double jeopardy.” Because the defendant’s argument raises questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.

This question requires us to engage in statutory interpretation, a question of law that we decide de novo.

Of course, if the legislature did not intend this interpretation of RSA 415:6-aa and RSA 420-J:7-b, VIII, it is free to amend the statutes as it sees fit.

This argument presents a question of constitutional law, which we review de novo.

State v. Marshall, 162 N.H. 657, 666 (2011) (quotation omitted).