Cited by

“Threat” has been defined as “‘any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and to take away from her acts that free and voluntary action that alone constitutes consent.’” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 581 (1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 234 (5th ed. 1979)) (brackets omitted).

State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 582- 84 (1988) (holding that evidence of prior sexual acts between the defendant and the victim were admissible under Rule 404(b) to demonstrate his use of implied threats to coerce the victim to submit to the charged sexual assaults).

We have defined “threat” for purposes of RSA 632-A:2 as “any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and to take away from her acts that free and voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 581 (1988) (quotation and brackets omitted) (construing former RSA 632-A:2, IV).

Additionally, we distinguished the case from State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578 (1988), on the basis that in Johnson, “the defendant had two months’ notice of the State’s intention to amend the indictment...

The defendant argues that he preserved this issue by making a motion for a new trial, citing State v. Elliott, 133 N.H. 759 (1990), and State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 586 (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. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587 (1988) (quotation omitted).

The defendant’s remaining argument was not preserved for appeal because it was not presented at trial.

It is well-established that contemporaneous objections are required to preserve issues for appeal.

State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 586, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (allowing State to use evidence of prior acts to prove case in which one instance was at issue).

Although the defendant’s notice of appeal and brief challenge the conditions on future employment contained in the sentencing orders, those issues were not raised before the trial court and are not preserved for appeal.

This rule, which is based on “common sense and judicial economy,” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988), recognizes that “trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991).

We have indicated that context may be among these other purposes.

Steed’s remaining arguments supporting his *159 claim of vindictiveness and hostility were not raised below; therefore, we do not address them.

State v. Kulikowski, 132 N.H. *119 281, 285, 564 A.2d 439, 442 (1989) (where State sought to prove coercion by threatening, coercion may be shown where threat is “implicit, arising from earlier incidents”); State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 582, 547 A.2d 213, 215 (1988) (affirming trial court finding that ‘“evidence of coercion under some circumstances is the result of a prolonged series of events between two individuals’”).

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 518, 643 A.2d 946, 952 (1994) (evidence that the defendant abused and killed the victim’s pets established “the very threat that coerced the victim to comply with the defendant’s demands”); State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 582-84, 547 A.2d 213, 215-16 (1988) (evidence of other coerced sexual activity between the defendant and the victim admissible to show a prolonged pattern of threats and coercion constituting coercion for charged crime); State v. Kulikowski, 132 N

The general rule is that we will not consider grounds of objections not called to the court’s attention at trial.

This court will not entertain objections that were not raised during the proceedings below.

State v. Elliott, 133 N.H. 759, 765, 585 A.2d, 304, 307 (1990); State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 586, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988); State v. Fennelly, 123 N.H. 378, 388, 461 A.2d 1090, 1095 (1983).

State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 585, 547 A.2d 213, 217 (1988); State v. Erickson, 129 N.H. 515, 519, 533 A.2d 23, 25 (1987).

1, art. 15, is not violated whenever a trial judge provides a jury instruction that does not mirror the indictment.

We find this issue not properly preserved for our review.

Absent a showing of prejudice, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling.

“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

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that we will not consider objections on appeal which were not raised during the proceed *164 ings below.

State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (legal sufficiency of charge not properly preserved for appeal because defendant failed to object at trial); State v. Stearns, 130 *447 N.H. 475, 486, 547 A.2d 672, 678 (1988) (defendant’s contention that police misrepresented statements in affidavit not raised before trial court and th

Because the defendant did not present his argument regarding a different standard under the State Constitution to the trial judge, we will not address it here.

*831 In reviewing the defendant’s assertion that the trial court failed to adequately consider the second prong of the Rule 404(b) analysis, we ask whether the trial court abused its discretion in its determination to admit the magazine.

We have said that this requirement is “grounded in common sense and judicial economy,” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988), in that it gives the trial court, as factfinder, an opportunity to make a determination of the issue.

add[s] an offense.’” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 585, 547 A.2d 213, 217 (1988) (quoting State v. Spade, 118 N.H. 186, 189, 385 A.2d 115, 116 (1978)).

103(b)(1); State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 580 A.2d 1079 (1990) (quoting State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988)).

This court has held that it “will not consider grounds of objections not specified or called to the court’s attention at the trial.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (quoting State v. Cassell, 129 N.H. 22, 24, 523 A.2d 40, 41 (1986)).

Since the trial court was not afforded an opportunity to correct an alleged error in its instructions, State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988), the issue was not properly preserved, and we will not consider it.

However, grounds of objection not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be considered for appellate relief.

with another person “[w]hen [he] coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use physical violence or superior physical strength on the victim, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats.” Although we agree with the defendant that under RSA 632-A:2, III the threat and sexual penetration must be close in time, the present threat need not be explicit.

We do not address these arguments because we do “not consider grounds of objections not specified or called to the court’s attention at the trial.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (quoting State v. Cassell, 129 N.H. 22, 24, 523 A.2d 40, 41 (1986)).

This court “‘will not consider grounds of objections not specified or called to the court’s *95 attention at the trial.’” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (quoting State v. Cassell, 129 N.H. 22, 24, 523 A.2d 40, 41 (1986)).