Cited by

at 823; see State v. Kardonsky, 169 N.H. 150, 152 (2016) (assuming without deciding that argument was not preserved but addressing merits “because the appeal issue constitutes a discrete question of statutory interpretation, requiring no further factual development”); Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 606-08 (1988) (reviewing unpreserved claims in part because “similar claims may be raised in the future”).

Furthermore, in the context of an agency appeal, we have determined that issues are not properly preserved for appellate review when the record shows that, not only did the plaintiff fail to raise them initially before the administrative agency, but also failed to raise them in their appeal to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10(1)(c).

Ultimately, there is no factual record that supports the defendant’s theory of relief.

Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 606-08 (1988); see also Sup.

Chu, 569 N.Y.S.2d 364, 571 N.E.2d at 690 (Hancock, J., dissenting) (citation omitted); see Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 613, 547 A.2d 682 (1988) (observing, "legislation merely regulating economic benefits and burdens.

meant to raise a constitutional issue.” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607 (1988), cert.

Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 606 (1988), cert.

Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607 (1988), cert.

When considering an appeal of an administrative DES decision, “our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the record of the appeal tribunal for errors of law, except insofar as that record may have been clarified or the issues limited in the course of subsequent proceedings before the appellate [board].” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 606 (1988) (citations omitted); see RSA 282-A:67, V (1999).

“[I]ssues must be raised at the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct claimed errors in the first instance.” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607 (1988), cert.

“[L]egislation merely regulating economic benefits and burdens, with no other significant feature, is reviewable under the rational basis criterion when challenged under the equal protection clause for allegedly producing disparate treatment, or under the dúe process clause on the ground that even its impartial application is invalid.” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 613, 547 A.2d 682, 690 (1988), cert.

The prosecutor did not dispute that representation, nor did the trial judge, who ruled that the matter had been handled “appropriately under Rule 608.” The purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement, to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct any claimed errors, see Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607, 547 A.2d 682, 686 (1988), cert.

Under this test, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the inclusion of those convicted of felonious sexual assault among offenders not permitted to post-conviction bail “is not rationally related to the advancement of any legitimate governmental interest.” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 613, 547 A.2d 682, 690 (1988) (emphasis added), cert.

Nonetheless, we find some utility in addressing this equal protection issue “because similar claims may be raised in the future,” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 608, 547 A.2d 682, 686 (1988), cert.

Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 606-07, 547 A.2d 682, 685-86 (1988), cert.

Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 608-09, 547 A.2d 682, 687 (1988), cert.

Thus, WOW did not effectively preserve this issue for rehearing, see id.; cf. Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607, 547 A.2d 682, 686 (1988) (issues must be raised at earliest possible time to allow trial forums full opportunity to come to sound conclusions and to correct claimed errors in first instance).

We usually insist that the trial court be given an opportunity to address and rule on issues before they are presented to this court, see Weldy v. Town of Kingston, 128 N.H. 325, 335, 514 A.2d 1257, 1263 (1986), and that we receive the benefit of a complete record, *464 see Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607, 547 A.2d 682, 686 (1988), and full briefing and argument, see Daboul supra.