Cited by

To be sure, liberal discovery rules recognize that “the ends of justice are best served by a system which gives both parties the maximum amount of information available, thus reducing the possibility of surprise at trial.” State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 124 (1985) (quotation omitted).

Our liberal discovery rules came about in recognition of the concept that “the ends of justice are best served by a system which gives both parties the maximum amount of information available, thus reducing the possibility of surprise at trial.” State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 124 (1985) (quotation omitted).

“We have long recognized that justice is best served by a system that reduces surprise at trial by giving both parties the maximum amount of information.” State v. Cromlish, 146 N.H. 277, 280 (2001); see *668 State n Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 124 (1985).

State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 124 (1985) (“No rule or case in this State binds a second judge to a previous trial judge’s [] ruling.”).

Ct. R. 98 J. Because Rule 98 permits the trial court discretion in determining whether evidence ought to be excluded when a party fails to comply with Rule 98, we will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.

The cases cited, however, involve the appealing party’s failure to object to an incomplete opening statement by a prosecutor, State v. Guay, 130 N.H. 413, 418-19 (1988), failure to object to the admission of evidence, State v. Menard, 133 N.H. 708, 710 (1990), and failure to object to a jury instruction, State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125 (1985).

We have long recognized that justice is best served by a system that reduces surprise at trial by giving both parties the maximum amount of information.

The admissibility of evidence is generally a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.

“This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, ‘affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made....’” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (quoting State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985)).

This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (citations and quotations omitted); State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985) (absent contemporaneous objection, untimely request for jury instructions does not give notice to the court necessa

In the circumstances of this case, however, we determine that no further action on the defendant’s part was necessary to “afford[] the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made.” State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985).

Further, this rule of reviewing only those issues preserved ensures that this court serve its proper function as an appellate court.

State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 694, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976); see also State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985).

This rule, “grounded in common sense and judicial economy, ‘affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made____’” Johnson, 130 N.H. at 587, 547 A.2d at 218 (quoting State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985)).

This rule “is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” Id.

“Moreover, this court will defer to the trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence, absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. at 225, 512 A.2d at 429 (citing State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 126, 489 A.2d 623, 627 (1985)).

This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, “affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985).

“A trial judge may exercise broad discretion when he balances the possible prejudice resulting from the admission of evidence against the probative value of the evidence.” State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 126, 489 A.2d 623, 627 (1985); see State v. Hotchkiss, 129 N.H. 260, 264, 525 A.2d 270, 272 (1987).

Thus, we hold that the department has waived its right to appeal the issue.

State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 126, 489 A.2d 623, 627 (1985) (trial court has broad discretion in balancing the prejudicial effect of evidence against its probative value).