Cited by

“In the context of multiple sentences stemming from a single act, there should be no difference between a double jeopardy analysis and a common law merger analysis.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 50 (2014) (brackets and quotation omitted).

State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 165 (2015); State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47 (2014).

State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014) (quotations, ellipsis, citations, and brackets omitted).

The parties agree that this case presents a “unit of prosecution” question.

In “double-description” cases, “we examine whether proof of the elements of the crimes as charged will require a difference in evidence.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014).

ates double jeopardy concerns, as it leaves “little to distinguish [RSA 631:9, I(a)(2)] from the crime of theft by unauthorized taking under RSA 637:3.” Whether two offenses constitute the same crime for double jeopardy 8 purposes depends upon “whether proof of the elements of the crimes as charged will require a difference in evidence.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (holding that, under the Federal Constitution, two offe

State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 165 (2015); State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47-48 (2014) (applying harmless error review to admission of evidence assumed to be in violation of New Hampshire Rules of Evidence and State and Federal Confrontation Clauses).

To determine whether charged offenses violate the double jeopardy protections of our State Constitution in unit of prosecution cases, we examine whether proof of the elements of the crimes as charged will require a difference in evidence.

is whether two statutes describe two separate offenses or are merely different descriptions of the same offense”; and (2) the “‘unit of prosecution’ cases in which the problem is not that the same course of conduct is proscribed by more than one statute but that a defendant’s continuing course of conduct is fragmented into more than one violation of a single statutory provision.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014) (quotations and brackets omitted).

State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014) (quotations, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).

State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 51 (2014) (quotations, ellipsis, citations, and brackets omitted).

“To demonstrate an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the defendant must show that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 49 (2014).

disagree that the grabbing, pushing, and pinning charges “were factually indistinguishable” and alleged only a single “unit of prosecution.” Under Part I, Article 16, we analyze “multiple punishment” cases, whether characterized as “double description” or “unit of prosecution” cases, by examining whether proof of the elements of the crimes as charged will require a difference in evidence.

“We will not reverse the trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 49 (2014).

“An error is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the verdict.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47 (2014) (quotation omitted).

State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47-48 (2014) (applying harmless error review to admission of evidence assumed to be in violation of the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence and State and Federal Confrontation Clauses).

State v. Hernandez, 159 N.H. 394, 401-02 (2009); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986) (recognizing that a violation of the Federal Confrontation Clause is subject to harmless-error analysis); State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47-48 (2014) (applying harmless error 3 review to admission of evidence assumed to be in violation of New Hampshire Rules of Evidence and State and Federal Confrontation Clauses).

State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 49 (2014) (noting that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for unsustainable exercises of discretion); Lavallee, 145 N.H. at 426 (limiting review to whether trial court exceeded its discretion in excluding evidence where the defendant did not preserve constitutional issue).

“An error is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the verdict.” State v. Ramsey, 166 N.H. 45, 47 (2014) (quotation omitted).