Cited by

Based upon the record before us, we can “confidently state that the jury would have returned the same verdict in the absence of the error.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014).

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

In other words, the 5 [complainant] has not violated RSA 570-A:2, I, if [she] has a ‘good faith’ belief that [her] conduct was lawful.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 69 (2014) (quoting Fischer v. Hooper, 143 N.H. 585, 589 (1999)).

RSA 570-A:2, I; see also State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68-69 (2014) (stating that misdemeanor and felony violations of RSA chapter 570-A require proof of different mental states).

To establish that an error affected substantial rights, “the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014) (quotation omitted).

Under the third prong, “the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014).

An error is plain when it was clear or obvious.

See, e.g., State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014) (observing that “to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the [appellant] must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68 (2014) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

This third prong of the plain error test “is similar to the harmless error analysis we use to evaluate preserved claims of error, with one important distinction: whereas the State bears the burden under harmless error analysis, the defendant bears the burden under the plain error test.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014).

“For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68 (2014) (quotation omitted).

RSA 649-A:2, I, III,:3, I. “For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68 (2014) (quotation omitted).

“Generally, to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014) (quotation omitted).

ss] before the jury’s excused,” to which the defendant’s counsel responded, “No, Your Honor.” However, the defendant asserts that “if it appears [that he] did not contemporaneously object to the trial judge’s abbreviated procedure, this Court should nonetheless reverse for plain error.” Under the plain error rule, we have discretion to correct errors that were not raised in the trial court.

Under the plain error rule, we have discretion to correct errors that were not raised in the trial court.

“We will find prejudice under the third prong when we cannot confidently state that the jury would have returned the same verdict in the absence of the error.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 70 (2014).

“The plain error rule allows us to exercise our discretion to correct errors not raised before the trial court.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68 (2014) (quotation omitted); see Sup.

Even if we assume that the instruction was erroneous and that the error was plain, we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated that the error affected his substantial rights.

For us to find plain error: “(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Mueller, 166 N.H. 65, 68 (2014) (quotation omitted).