Cited by

The rule, however, should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

The rule, however, should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

The rule, however, should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

Labrie, 171 N.H. at 489; State v. Guay, 164 N.H. 696, 704 (2013) (observing that defendant bears burden to show plain error on appeal).

Generally, to demonstrate that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must show that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.

The rule, however, should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised in the trial court.

“Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the legislature’s intent in enacting them, and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.” State v. Guay, 164 N.H. 696, 700 (2013) (quotation omitted).

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.

When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent and we do not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not include in the statute.

RSA 149-M:15, III (2005); State v. Guay, 164 N.H. 696, 698 (2013).

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.

We are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent regarding the meaning of a statute considered as a whole, and our review of the trial court’s statutory interpretation is de novo.

State v. Guay, 164 N.H. 696, 703 (2013); see United States v. Davis, 609 F.3d 663, 677 (5th Cir. 2010).