Cited by

A defense of justification requires that the defendant admit the substance of the allegation.

See, e.g., State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 156 (2013) (defendant not entitled to defense of another instruction because he “did not admit to any of the facts alleged in the indictment”).

“To find plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 160 (2013) (quotation omitted).

For the first time on appeal, the State contends that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction because she failed to “admit [the] basis for the charges, i.e., that she directed [her boyfriend] to shoot at the terrified and fleeing victim.” The State observes that, in criminal cases, we distinguish between theories of defense and theories of the case.

Likewise, “[w]e review challenges to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and reverse only if the rulings are clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of a party’s case.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 158 (2013) (quotation omitted).

Under plain error review, we may consider arguments that were not previously raised in the trial court.

court’s order denying his motion focused only on the appearance of the machete rather than its “role in the case.” To prevail on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must show that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

See, e.g., State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 161 (2013) (“We have never held that a trial court must sua sponte strike or issue a curative instruction with respect to witness testimony.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.

“We have never held that a trial court must sua sponte strike or issue a curative instruction with respect to witness testimony” and, in fact, “we have suggested that courts should refrain from taking such action.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 161 (2013); see State v. Drown, 170 N.H. ___, ___ (decided June 5, 2018) (slip op.

The necessity and the particular scope and wording of a jury instruction generally fall within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Indeed, “[w]e have never held that a trial court must sua sponte strike or issue a curative instruction with respect to witness testimony.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 161 (2013); accord State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 604 (2016).

RSA 627:1 (2016); cf. State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 155 (2013) (holding that to be entitled to jury instruction a defense must be “legally available in light of the charged offense and the evidence adduced at trial”).

“We review challenges to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and reverse only if the rulings are clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of a party’s case.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 158 (2013) (quotation omitted).

This requirement is intended to discourage parties who are unhappy with the trial result to comb the record to find an alleged error never raised before the trial judge that might support a motion to set aside the verdict.

We review challenges to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

“This requirement is designed to discourage parties unhappy with the trial result to comb the record, endeavoring to find some alleged error never addressed by the trial judge that could be used to set aside the verdict.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 152 (2013) (quotation omitted).

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

The defendant contends that, “as a general matter, other acts evidence is relevant to prove a defendant’s ‘intent’ only if the defendant is charged with acting with a specific purpose.” Although the State asserts that this argument is not preserved for our review because it was not presented to the trial court, see State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 152 (2013), we will address its merits.

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

State v. Rawnsley, 167 N.H. 8, 12 (2014); State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 161 (2013).

“We have looked to the federal plain error analysis in applying our plain error rule.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 160 (2013) (quotation omitted).

In order to prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “a defendant must show that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 151 (2013) (quotation omitted).

State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 152 (2013); State v. Eschenbrenner, 164 N.H. 532, 543 (2013).

Therefore, we do not address it.

State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 152 (2013); Butland, 147 N.H. at 679.

State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 152 (2013) (“We have consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

A defendant does not have the right to a particular jury instruction “when he simply presents evidence of a different factual scenario than that presented by the State.” Cf. State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 155-56 (2013) (quotation omitted) (finding that trial court did not err in failing to instruct jury in accordance with model jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another when defendant merely presented evidence of a different factual scenario than the State).

‘Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of the instruction, are within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 154 (2013).

State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 158 (2013) (decided July 16, 2013).