Cited by

at 79; State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (explaining that when “a discretionary decision is at issue and the trial court has not exercised that discretion, we may sustain the trial court’s ruling on a ground upon which it did not rely only if there is only one way the trial court could have ruled as a matter of law” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 581 (2014) (concluding that threats need not have been true to be admissible to show their effect on the defendant).

State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (quotation omitted).

State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 580 (2014) (“Evidence that an individual has been the victim of past violent acts may be relevant to explain that individual’s present behavior.”).

“A statement that is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to show its effect on the witness is not hearsay.” State v. Reinholz, 169 N.H. 22, 29 (2016); see State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 581 (2014) (explaining that evidence of out-of-court statements “offered merely to provide a foundation for the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear at the time of the robbery” did not constitute hearsay).

Although the trial court denied the defendant’s request on a different basis, we may uphold a trial court’s discretionary decision when it reached the right result for the wrong reason.

“When, as in this case, a discretionary decision is at issue and the trial court has not exercised that discretion, we may sustain the trial court’s ruling on a ground upon which it did not rely only if there is only one way the trial court could have ruled as a matter of law.” State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (quotation omitted); see Wright v. United States, 508 A.2d 915, 919- 20 (D.C.

State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (“When, as in this case, a discretionary decision is at issue and the trial court has not exercised that discretion, we may sustain the trial court’s ruling on a ground upon which it did not rely only if there is only one way the trial court could have ruled as a matter of law.” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (observing that when a discretionary decision is at issue and the trial court has not exercised that discretion, we may sustain the trial court’s ruling on a ground upon which it did not rely if there is only one way the trial court could have ruled as a matter of law).

If a statement is not offered to prove its truth, but is offered for some other reason, it is not hearsay.

We review a trial court’s ruling admitting evidence for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

“When, as in this case, a discretionary decision is at issue and the trial court has not exercised that discretion, we may sustain the trial court’s ruling on a ground upon which it did not rely only if there is only one way the trial court could have ruled as a matter of law.” State v. Hayward, 166 N.H. 575, 583 (2014) (quotation omitted).

We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence to determine whether its exercise of discretion is sustainable.