Cited by

“[W]hen 3 asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Alonzi, 156 N.H. at 660 (quotation omitted); see State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 538 (2011).

That recognition, in conjunction with Seacoast’s request that we overrule Fenniman, triggers our stare decisis analysis.

“[W]hen asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539 (2011) (quotation omitted).

We have identified four factors to be considered in determining whether precedent should be overruled.

“RSA 601:1 (2001), which must be considered in conjunction with Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, requires that a person be indicted by the grand jury before he or she may be tried for any offense punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 541 (2011).

State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532-33 (2011) (discussing stare decisis factors).

“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Even if the petitioners had raised these issues in the trial court, “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532 (2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Dixon, 144 N.H. 273, 283-84 (1999), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526 (2011).

hat that our holding is “illogical, a legal non sequitur,” he does not provide developed legal argument in support of his position in his opening brief, see Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49 (noting that we confine our review to only those issues that the defendant has fully briefed), nor does he address the factors that we consider in determining whether to overrule our precedents, see State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532-33 (2011) (listing factors).

The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.

“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 532 (2011) (quotation omitted).

idence was not “lengthy, comprehensive, or directly linked to a determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant” (quotation omitted)), and State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159 (1997) (harmless error where the State did not “call particular attention to [the disputed evidence] in closing argument”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 118 (2003), and State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526 (2011), with State v. Pelkey, 145 N.H. 133, 137-38 (2000) (error not harmless when “[t]

“[W]hen asked to reconsider a holding, the question is not whether we would decide the issue differently de novo, but whether the ruling has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.” State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539 (2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526, 539, 34 A.3d 612 (2011) (quotation omitted).