Cited by

State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228 (1986) (recognizing that “an arbitrary delay between the time of an offense and the arrest or indictment of a defendant may result in a denial of due process” (quotation omitted)).

Although Peerless’ brief could be read to assert a due process violation for delay in bringing the instant action, see, e.g., State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228 (1986), our review of the proceedings below shows that Peerless advances this argument for the first time on appeal.

As such, it is insufficient to support a finding of prejudice.

Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause has a limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay.

The only New Hampshire case cited by the defendant below in support of his due process argument, State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. *513 226, 512 A.2d 1117 (1986), was decided on federal constitutional grounds.

In balancing this delay against the other factors, however, we are mindful that the right to a speedy trial is relative, State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228, 512 A.2d 1117, 1119 (1986), and “must be considered with regard to the practical administration of justice,” Fletcher, 135 N.H. at 608, 607 A.2d at 960 (quotations omitted).

Such a statement is not inadmissible hearsay, however, when it is offered to prove a fact other than its truth.

The defendant’s right to a speedy trial also “ ‘must be considered with regard to the practical administration of justice.’” State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228, 512 A.2d 1117, 1119 (1986) (quoting Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N.H. 33, 34, 177 A.2d 396, 398 (1962)).

In the context of cases such as this, the due process clause has a “‘limited role to play in protecting against oppressive delay.’” State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228, 512 A.2d 1117, 1119 (1986) (quoting United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789 (1977)).

“The applicable statute of limitations provides ‘the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.’” State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228, 512 A.2d 1117, 1119 (1986) (citations omitted).

In interpreting federal due process requirements in this context, we have held that the applicable statute of limitations for an offense “provides ‘the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.’ ” State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 228, 512 A.2d 1117, 1119 (1986) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 122 (1966)); see also State v. Philibotte, 123 N.H. 240, 244, 459 A.2d 275, 277 (1983) (prosecution presumed timely if charges brought within stat

801(c); see State v. Varagianis, 128 N.H. 226, 230, 512 A.2d 1117, 1120 (1986); Caledonia, Inc. v. Trainor, 123 N.H. 116, 121, 459 A.2d 613, 616 (1983).