Cited by

Although “Rule 404(b) typically applies when the State seeks to 8 introduce evidence of other bad acts of a defendant,” State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 730 (2013), we have previously applied Rule 404(b) to determine the admissibility of evidence of another person’s other “bad acts” offered by the defendant to show that the person was an alternative perpetrator of the crimes.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

We review the trial court’s decision under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

In ruling on a motion to set aside a jury’s verdict, the trial court must “exercise its discretion with caution and invoke its power to grant a new trial only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict and where a miscarriage of justice may have resulted.” State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 734 (2013) (quotation omitted).

We have frequently observed that the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses and jury firsthand; in contrast, on appeal, we examine the record without benefit of these firsthand courtroom observations.

To prevail upon a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the defendant must establish that the verdict is one that no reasonable jury 3 could have returned.

State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 731 (2013) (“off-hand invocations” of constitutional rights supported by neither argument nor authority warrant no extended consideration).

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290 (2015) (agreeing with trial court that Rule 404(b) applied to alternative perpetrator evidence at issue in that case); see also State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 729 (2013) (assuming, without deciding, that Rule 404(b) applies to alternative perpetrator evidence).

As we have repeatedly stated, “judicial review is not warranted for complaints regarding adverse rulings without developed legal argument, and neither passing reference to constitutional claims nor off-hand invocations of constitutional rights without support by legal argument or authority warrants extended consideration.” State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 731 (2013) (quotation and brackets omitted).

This argument is not sufficiently developed to warrant our review and we decline to address it.

State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 731 (2013) (“off-hand invocations” of constitutional rights supported by neither argument nor authority warrant no extended consideration).