Cited by

We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Although “confinement” is not defined in RSA 627:9, we have previously interpreted it in the context of that statute to mean “‘the act of confining or state of being confined; restraint within limits.’” State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 435 (2012) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 476 (unabridged ed. 2002)).

to preclude testimony by the arresting officer, to impeach that officer’s testimony, and to recall on the second day of trial that officer and the Chief of Police “as more questions are needed of [them].” The defendant bears 2 the burden of demonstrating that these discretionary rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 435 (2012) (“[W]hether a statute provides a basis for a requested jury instruction raises a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.”).

“In determining whether a ruling is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we consider whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary decision made.” State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 438 (2012) (quotation omitted).

“The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 438 (2012) (quotation omitted).

Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of jury instructions, are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

“To show an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 438 (2012) (quotation omitted).

The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.

“The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 438 (2012) (quotation omitted).

State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 437 (2012) (jury instruction did not need to expressly inform jury it could consider particular evidence in a manner favorable to defendant); State v. Shannon, 125 N.H. 653, 662-63 (1984) (finding that trial court did not err in declining to give instruction that would support defendant’s theory of the case).

‘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. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 434 (2012) (quotation omitted).

State v. Furgal, 164 N.H. 430, 435 (2012) (“whether a statute provides a basis for a requested jury instruction raises a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo”).