Cited by

We note that this argument is not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), and does not constitute plain error, see State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (“For the purposes of the plain error rule, an error is plain if it was or should have been obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.”); State v. Scott Chandler, No. 2021-0515 (non-precedential order at 1-2), 2022 WL 18427405 (N.H. Sept.

Because the State’s argument fails under the second prong of the plain error analysis, we need not address the remaining plain error arguments.

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011) (to find plain error, there must be an error).

State v. Fletcher, 158 N.H. 207, 211 (2009) (explaining that “where the original sentence is clear as to the intent and is legal, the sentencing court does not have authority to later increase the sentence”); State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 596 (2011) (“Due process.

A motion to dismiss a complaint is untimely if “brought in the middle of trial, after the State rested its case.” State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011).

“The Supreme Court has held, however, that defects in indictments are not jurisdictional and thus are subject to waiver.” United States v. Urbina-Robles, 817 F.3d 838, 842 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002); see State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 589-90 (2011) (concluding that “any defect in the 2 indictment did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction”).

“‘Plain’ as used in the plain error rule is synonymous with clear or, equivalently, obvious.” State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015); State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011); see also N.H. R. Crim.

at 490, 491, 492, 986 A.2d 515 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591, 592, 34 A.3d 599 (2011) (trial court did not "commit[ ] plain error by instructing the jury that the mens rea for the [charged offense] was 'knowingly' instead of 'purposely' " where "the evidence that the defendant acted purposely was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted").

at 490, 491, 492 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591, 592 (2011) (trial court did not “commit[] plain error by instructing the jury that the mens rea for the [charged offense] was ‘knowingly’ instead of ‘purposely’” where “the evidence that the defendant acted purposely was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted”).

at 490, 491, 492 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591, 592 (2011) (trial court did not “commit[] 11 plain error by instructing the jury that the mens rea for the [charged offense] was ‘knowingly’ instead of ‘purposely’” where “the evidence that the defendant acted purposely was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted”).

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (holding that a purported error cannot be “plain” for purposes of the plain error rule when it raises an issue of first impression).

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011) (applying former Superior Court Rule 98(F)); compare Super.

Plain error review “is an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule and provides us with the discretion to review unpreserved error on appeal for plain error that affects substantial rights.” State v. Hebert, 158 N.H. 306, 314 (2009); see State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011).

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court.

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011); see also Dist.

Citing State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011), the State argues that, because the defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the complaint until the close of all evidence, his motion was untimely and, thus, our review is confined to plain error.

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 596 (2011) (citation omitted).

In this regard, this case is distinguishable from State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585 (2011).

“An indictment generally is sufficient if it recites the language of the relevant statute; it need not specify the means by which the crime was accomplished or other facts that are not essential to the elements of the crime.” State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 588 (2011) (quotation omitted).

He argues that “[t]hese conflicts present the situation that the Separation of Powers Clause was meant to prevent — that of one branch of government interfering with and superseding the essential powers of another branch.” We review questions of constitutional law de novo.

State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 589 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Having determined that the improper questioning regarding the defendant’s wife’s testimony was harmless based upon the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we likewise conclude that the improper questioning regarding the police officers’ testimony did not affect substantial rights.

For the purposes of the plain error rule, however, an error is plain only if it was or should have been obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.

“For the purposes of the plain error rule, an error is plain if it was or should have been obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.” State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (quotation omitted).

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors not raised before the trial court.