Cited by

e said that the double jeopardy clauses of our respective constitutions provide three double jeopardy protections: (1) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after 7 conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.

.”); State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 763-64, 767 (2017) (relying upon legislative statement of purpose articulated in session law to interpret unambiguous statutory language).

Specifically, “the defendant must establish that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 760 (2017).

Accordingly, we confine our review to analysis of the unit of prosecution intended by the legislature.

(quotation omitted); see also State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 773 (2017).

State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 766 (2017) (“[A] statute will not be construed so as to lead to absurd consequences.”).

State v. Wilson, 169 N.H. 755, 770 (2017) (explaining that a statute can be impermissibly vague if it “fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand the conduct it prohibits” (quotation omitted)).

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.

This preservation requirement, expressed in both our case law and Supreme Court Rule 16(3)(b), reflects the general policy that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.

We will not review any issue that the defendant did not raise before the trial court.

To resolve the State’s preservation challenge, and to evaluate the merits of the defendant’s preserved argument(s), we must examine how these issues were presented to the trial court, the parties’ arguments to the trial court, and the trial court’s rulings.

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions each provide three protections: (1) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.