Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Cass, 427 A.2d 1.
-
State v. Nutter
600 A.2d 139
N.H. 1991
For these reasons, “[e]rrors discovered by combing the record after trial and never properly presented to the trial judge should not be utilized to set aside a verdict.” State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 83, 427 A.2d 1, 3 (1981).
-
State v. McAdams
594 A.2d 1273
N.H. 1991
“Errors discovered by combing the record after trial and never properly presented to the trial judge should not be utilized to set aside a verdict.” State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 83, 427 A.2d 1, 3 (1981).
-
State v. Dube
547 A.2d 283
N.H. 1988
New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 103(b)(1) states that “a contemporaneous objection [must appear] of record, stating explicitly the specific ground of objection; all other grounds for objection shall be deemed waived.” The rule requiring timely objections to alleged error at trial is designed to give the court an opportunity to correct any possible error.
-
State v. Johnson
547 A.2d 213
N.H. 1988
“Errors discovered by combing the record after trial and never properly presented to the trial judge should not be utilized to set aside a verdict.” State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 83, 427 A.2d 1, 3 (1981).
-
State v. Guay
543 A.2d 910
N.H. 1988
Bond v. Bean, 72 N.H. 444, 447, 57 A. 340, 341 (1904); and has indicated, on numerous occasions, that a timely objection is necessary to preserve an issue for appeal, State v. Fecteau, 121 N.H. 1003, 1006, 437 A.2d 294, 296 (1981).
-
State v. Sands
467 A.2d 202
N.H. 1983
The rule requiring timely objections to alleged errors in the trial is intended to give the court an opportunity to correct any possible error.
-
State v. Little
462 A.2d 117
N.H. 1983
State v. Lister, 122 N.H. 603, 607-08, 448 A.2d 395, 398 (1982); State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 82-83, 427 A.2d 1, 2-3 (1981).
-
State v. Fernald
462 A.2d 122
N.H. 1983
Thus, the issue of whether the prejudicial effect of admitting the rifle and the shotgun was greater than their probative value as evidence is not properly before us. See State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983); State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 83, 427 A.2d 1, 2-3 (1981).
-
State v. Glidden
459 A.2d 1136
N.H. 1983
State v. Dukette, 122 N.H. 336, 338, 444 A.2d 547, 549 (1982); State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 82, 427 A.2d 1, 2 (1981).
-
State v. Niquette
451 A.2d 1292
N.H. 1982
Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 531-32, 404 A.2d 1100, 1101-02 (1979); see State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 82, 427 A.2d 1, 2 (1981).
-
State v. Dukette
444 A.2d 547
N.H. 1982
State v. Cass, 121 N.H. 81, 82-83, 427 A.2d 1, 2-3 (1981); see State v. Morehouse, 120 N.H. 738, 745, 424 A.2d 798, 801 (1980) (opinion on rehearing).
-
State v. Martin
437 A.2d 308
N.H. 1981
the defendant’s sister had asked the police: “What do I have to do to protect my brother?” Although this statement had apparently been excluded, other testimony which was admitted indicated a decision on the part of the defendant’s sister to protect him and to prevent him from “getting into trouble.” It does not appear that there was any question raised regarding this argument until after verdict.
-
Steel v. Bemis
431 A.2d 113
N.H. 1981
Under these circumstances the defendant cannot now question any aspect of that charge.