Cited by

This is so because, when “determining whether the evidence was sufficient,” we “consider all the evidence, including evidence that was erroneously admitted.” State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 418 (2011); see also State v. Horak, 159 N.H. 576, 582-83 (2010) (explaining that we review for sufficiency of the evidence because where the evidence offered by the State and admitted by the trial court — whether erroneously or not — would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, the Double Jeopardy

[¶20] We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

The purpose underlying our preservation rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380, 387 (2006) (stating that conduct illuminates intent); cf. State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 415 (2011) (“Motive has been defined as supplying the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge in criminal intent.” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 419 (2013) (“[W]e review the propriety of the trial court’s pretrial rulings in the context in which evidentiary disputes were presented to the court.”); cf. State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 414 (2011) (“Because the trial court ruled upon the admissibility of the challenged evidence before trial, we consider only the offers of proof presented at the pretrial hearing.”).

“Because the trial court ruled upon the admissibility of the challenged evidence before trial, we consider only the offers of proof presented at the pretrial hearing.” State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 414 (2011).

ed from the search warrant should have been suppressed at trial, we address the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the State has not indicated whether it intends to retry him, and because, if the evidence was insufficient, “the Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions would preclude a new trial.” State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 418 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Assuming, without deciding, that this issue is preserved for review, but see State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 417 (2011) (contemporaneous and specific objection is generally required to preserve an issue for appellate review), we find no error.

Although we conclude that the evidence obtained from the search of the van should have *718 been suppressed at trial, we must address the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence arguments “because if the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions would preclude a new trial.” State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 418 (2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 417 (2011) (contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review).

“The crime of burglary consists of two elements: (1) unauthorized entry; and (2) an intent to commit a crime therein.” State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 415 (2011) (citation omitted); see RSA 635:1, I. The defendant does not challenge that there was an unauthorized entry.

State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 418 (2011) (“[I]f the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of both the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of a defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity or weight and if the inadmissible evidence is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s evidence of guilt.

(excluding evidence); State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 416-17 (2011) (admitting evidence).