Cited by

State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 171 (2015) (“[A]ny issues raised in the defendant's notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.”).

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

State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 167 (2015) 8 (finding harmless error where, although the challenged evidence corroborated a key witness’s testimony, other evidence in the case also corroborated the testimony).

9 221 (1983) (“[W]e must also consider the State’s argument that the admission of his testimony, in light of all the existing circumstances, constituted harmless error.”); cf. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986) (“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts.”); State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 165 (2015) (citing Delaware, 475 U.S. at 684).

Finally, the objectionable statement was isolated, and was cured by the trial court’s instruction that “what the lawyers say is not evidence.” See State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 169-70 (2015) (observing that objectionable statement during closing argument did not affect the outcome of the proceeding in part because it was made only once and was cured by trial court’s instructions).

Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 494 (2007); cf. State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 168 (2015) (discussing prejudice prong of plain error test).

“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. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 168 (2015) (quotation omitted).

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).

The State is correct in its assertion that the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 167-71 (2015) (discussing and applying the plain error rule in the context of prosecutorial statements).

To reverse a criminal conviction based upon a plain error, we must find, among other elements, that the alleged error affected substantial rights.

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

Any issues that the defendant raised in his notice of appeal, but did not brief, are deemed waived.

The trial court specifically instructed the jury that it was “not allowed to consider the prosecutor’s questions as evidence.” See, e.g., United States v. Cudlitz, 72 F.3d 992, 1002 (1st Cir.1996); see also State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 170 (2015).

We note that the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless only if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict was not affected by its admission.

See, e.g., State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 171 (2015) (juries are presumed to follow instructions).

Finally, any issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

Finally, any issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

The defendant concedes that this instruction was “prompt and effective.” See State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 171 (2015) (stating juries are presumed to follow instructions).

However, we presume that juries follow instructions.

The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless only if the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by it.