Cited by

The plain error rule allows us to consider issues that were not raised in the trial court.

(2) whether the admitted or excluded evidence is cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s case, see State v. Lemieux, 136 N.H. 329, 331-32 (1992); (3) the frequency of the error, see State v. Bujnowski, 130 N.H. 1, 5-6 (1987); (4) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted or excluded evidence, see State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 306 (2015); (5) the nature of the defense, see State v. Brown, 128 N.H. 606, 611 (1986)

Because we have not yet had occasion to address the applicability of RSA 604-A:2-f to this type of fine, and given the parties’ divergent and plausible interpretations of the statute and applicable case law, we cannot say that any error that the trial court might have committed by not invoking this statute sua sponte would have been plain error.

[A]ccordingly, much must be left to the discretion of the trial court in admitting or rejecting such testimony.” State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 302-03 (2015) (quotation omitted).

For us to find plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

generally State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 302 (2015) (“Our only function on review is to determine whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court on the basis of the evidence before it.” (quotation omitted)).

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court.

from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person.” RSA 627:4, I (2016); see State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 307 (2015).

State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 306 (2015) (ruling that victim’s written statement was cumulative because it only repeated victim’s properly-admitted oral statement).

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court.

For us to find plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court.

Ct. R. 16-A, an error is “plain” only if it was or should have been obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court.

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

Under the plain error rule: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310 (2015) (describing plain error test).

State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310 (2015) (describing plain error rule).

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

An error is harmless if the State can establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it did not affect the verdict.