Cited by

“Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the trial court.” State v. Batista- Salva, 171 N.H. 818, 822 (2019) (describing preservation requirement).

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

[¶16] Generally, we do not review issues that were not presented to the hearings tribunal.

The State bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

t agrees and reverses the trial court’s determination, then the trial court’s decision to grant a sentence review hearing must also be reversed.” As we have concluded that the trial court did not err in concluding that disclosure of the text messages fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, we need not consider the State’s other arguments, having rejected the premise on which they rely.

Accordingly, the argument is unpreserved, and we need not address it.

The defendant, as the appealing party, bears the burden of proving that he preserved his appellate arguments, including his argument that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, any such argument is unpreserved, and we need not address it.

State v. Batista-Salva, 171 N.H. 818, 824 (2019) (“Given our conclusions above, we need not consider the defendant’s other arguments, having rejected the premise on which they rely.”).

State v. Batista-Salva, 171 N.H. 818, 822 (2019) (observing that we generally do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not raised before the trial court).

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the trial court.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the trial court.

However, the adequacy of the space heater was not considered by the trial court in the first instance as it should have been, and therefore that issue is not properly before us. See State v. Batista-Salva, 171 N.H. 818, 822 (2019).

The defendant, as the appealing party, bears the burden of demonstrating that his appellate argument is preserved.