Cited by

Thus, any issues that could not have been presented to the trial court before its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.

P. 43(a), and we decline the State’s invitation to waive our preservation requirement, see State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 28 (2015).

at 610-11; see also State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 25 (2015) (holding that parking area behind defendant’s multi-family residence was not part of the curtilage in part because the parking area “was available for the shared benefit” of the residents (quotation omitted)); State v. Chaisson, 125 N.H. 810, 816 (1984) (stating in dicta that “common areas of an apartment b

Indeed, the court specifically noted that “there was no evidence that any electrical conduit actually passed through [the plaintiff’s] lot.” The defendant has not demonstrated that it sought reconsideration of this finding, see State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015), nor does the defendant argue on appeal that the court’s finding lacks evidentiary support, see Lane, 172 N.H. at ___ (slip op.

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 26 (2015); see also State v. Fortier, 146 N.H. 784, 788 (2001) (noting that preservation rule allows trial court to correct errors “as they occur”).

The purpose of this rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct any errors it may have made before those alleged errors are presented for review on appeal.

We assume, without deciding, that the defendant’s challenges at trial to the trooper’s lack of expert qualifications preserved his arguments on appeal regarding whether the State established a foundation for the trooper’s lay opinion testimony.

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 26-28, 119 A.3d 870 (2015) (rejecting argument that the defendant was not required to raise specific arguments in support of motion to suppress to preserve them on appeal because, by raising different argument on appeal than the argument presented to the trial court, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 26-28 (2015) (rejecting argument that the defendant was not required to raise specific arguments in support of motion to suppress to preserve them on appeal because, by raising different argument on appeal than the argument presented to the trial court, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to correct its al

“The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the defendant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues that could not have been presented to the trial court before its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015); see also Super.

at 6); see State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015).

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015); State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012).

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015); State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012); cf. Berliner, 150 N.H. at 84-85 (holding defendant did not preserve jury instruction issue because counsel never made a formal objection).

The purported error did not exist until the trial court issued its order, and “any issues that could not have been presented to the trial court before its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015).

P. 43(a); see also State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015).

Accordingly, the issue is not preserved for review.

“The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the defendant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues that could not have been presented to the trial court before its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015).

“[T]o satisfy the preservation requirement, any issues that could not have been presented to the trial court before its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015).

h the Board’s position because this issue was not readily apparent at the time of the hearing: the notice of hearing given to the petitioner did not allege as a ground for discipline her failure to pay prior fines, and the Board did not mention the fines in the context of its action against the petitioner until it stated, as part of its sanction, that the petitioner pay prior fines within 90 days.

h the Board’s position because this issue was not readily apparent at the time of the hearing: the notice of hearing given to the petitioner did not allege as a ground for discipline her failure to pay prior fines, and the Board did not mention the fines in the context of its action against the petitioner until it stated, as part of its sanction, that the petitioner pay prior fines within 90 days.

Analysis When reviewing a trial court’s rulings on a motion to suppress, we accept its findings of fact unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 28 (2015); Nelson, 105 N.H. at 190 (treating objections claimed to be not preserved at trial for murder “as if seasonably” made “[i]n view of the seriousness of the charges against these defendants” in addition to counsel’s “understandable” failure to object in light of the law then existing).

The appellant must afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before raising the issue on appeal.

To the extent that the State believes the trial court improperly used this inquiry, it was incumbent upon the State to move for reconsideration.

“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and we review its legal conclusions de novo.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 22 (2015).

When reviewing an order on a motion to suppress evidence, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

“The United States Supreme Court has recently clarified that, under the Federal Constitution, a criminal defendant may also challenge a search based upon a trespass theory.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 23-24 (2015); see also Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1414-17.

“[T]he purpose underlying our preservation rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 26 (2015) (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.” State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 22 (2015).

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015) (trial court must have opportunity to consider any issues asserted by defendant on appeal).

The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the defendant on appeal.

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 26-28 (2015) (rejecting argument that the defendant was not required to raise specific arguments in support of motion to suppress to preserve them on appeal because, by raising different argument on appeal than the argument presented to the trial court, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to correct its al