Cited by

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 590-91 (2017) (excluded evidence of a recorded telephone call for the purpose of attacking a prison witness’ motives for testifying was cumulative of other admitted evidence that 5 the witness was motivated by a desire to get out of prison).

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 588 (2017) (quotation omitted).

Against this evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the admission of the Fall River conduct was cumulative and inconsequential.

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 583 (2017) (quotation omitted).

“To establish that an error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.” State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 588 (2017) (quotation omitted).

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 588 (2017) (quotation omitted).

“To establish that an error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.” State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 588 (2017) (quotation omitted).

We need not determine whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, because we agree with the State that the error, if any, was harmless.

unsustainable exercise of discretion.

We need not determine whether the trial court erred in excluding the statement, because we agree with the State that even if there was error, it was harmless.

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 583 (2017); cf. Pelletier, 149 N.H. at 253 (noting that whether a statement “is offered for purposes other than its truth.

Therefore, his argument is not preserved for our review, and we decline to consider it in the first instance.

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 590 (2017) (evidence that the defendant flushed a towel used to clean the victim’s blood down a toilet constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt).

We need not determine whether the trial court erred in admitting the results of the DNA test run by the State on the hospital blood draw sample because, we agree with the State that any error was harmless.

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 583 (2017) (quotation omitted).

State v. Edic, 169 N.H. 580, 590 (2017) (evidence that the defendant flushed the towel he used to clean up the victim’s blood down toilet constituted evidence that he was conscious of his guilt).