Cited by

To find plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

2 A defendant must bring challenges to the sufficiency of a charging document before trial.

The State disagrees, arguing that the defendant’s “reliance on Hynes is misplaced” because Hynes defines “substantially benefit,” rather than “to benefit.” [¶10] The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo.

In matters of statutory interpretation, we determine the legislative intent as expressed by the words of the statute considered as a whole.

“The criminal conduct proscribed under RSA 264:25, I, takes place only after an accident has occurred; the crime is not the accident itself.” State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015).

In matters of statutory interpretation, the intent of the legislature is expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo.

In matters of statutory interpretation, the intent of the legislature is expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.

State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 31 (2015) (“[W]e interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language it did not see fit to include.”).

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that we review de novo.

“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. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015) (quotation omitted).

Id.; see State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33-34 (2015) (holding that the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint was untimely, and, consequently, applying plain error review, when the defendant raised the issue for the first time after trial).

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Resolving the State’s appeal also requires that we interpret the language of RSA 641:6, I. The interpretation of a statute raises a question of law, which we also review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute raises a question of law, which 4 we review de novo.

The interpretation of a statute raises a question of law, which we review de novo.

t “develop[ed] a test for determining the outer limits of the connection that must exist between harm or loss, on the one hand, and criminal conduct, on the other, to support an order of restitution,” we recognize that “[t]he plain language of the restitution statute clearly and unambiguously requires a causal connection between the criminal act and the economic loss or damage.” State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 32 (2015); see State v. Armstrong, 151 N.H. 686, 687 (2005) (noting that “a defendant m

The interpretation of a statute raises a question of law, which we review de novo.

We have not “develop[ed] a test for determining the outer limits of the connection that must exist between harm or loss, on the one hand, and criminal conduct, on the other, to support an order of restitution.” State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 32 (2015).

State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015); State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 590 (2011); see also N.H. R. Crim.

Accordingly, our review is de novo.

to pass legal muster.” We have held that a defendant must bring a challenge to the sufficiency of the charging document prior to 2 trial.

See, e.g., State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015) (failure to raise claim of error in timely fashion does not preclude all appellate review, but rather confines review to plain error).

See, e.g., State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015) (failure to raise claim of error in timely fashion does not preclude all appellate review but rather confines review to plain error).

State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 32 (2015) (addressing RSA 651:62, III (2016), which limits restitution to loss incurred “as a direct result of a criminal offense”).

“Because resolution of this issue requires the interpretation of a statute, our review is de novo.” State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 31 (2015).

“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. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28, 33 (2015) (quotation omitted).