DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Wisowaty, 580 A.2d 1079.

16 citing documents.

  • State v. Demeritt 813 A.2d 393 N.H. 2002
  • In re State ex rel. Reitenour 807 A.2d 1259 N.H. 2002
    As the respondent never specifically objected to the petitioner’s failure to introduce the individual receipts, this issue has not *365 been preserved for appeal.
  • State v. Young 743 A.2d 1275 N.H. 1999
    Even if we assume that the representation constituted a concession, the only objection the defendant made when the testimony was offered was, “I have the same objection to this testimony as previously.” We conclude that such a general objection was insufficient to hold the State to its “concession.” See State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607-08, 580 A.2d 1079, 1080-81 *484 (1990) (court will not consider grounds for objection not specified at trial).
  • State v. Sullivan 702 A.2d 339 N.H. 1997
    State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 608-09, 580 A.2d 1079, 1081 (1990) (remanding for resentencing because it was unclear whether sentencing judge relied on unsubstantiated allegations of criminal conduct).
  • State v. Burgess 677 A.2d 142 N.H. 1996
    Because probation had not been a part of the original sentence, we vacate the court’s August 1994 sentence to the extent it provided for probation and remand to the trial court for resen *55 tencing.
  • State v. Kimball 663 A.2d 634 N.H. 1995
    State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 609, 580 A.2d 1079, 1081 (1990) (“[W]e will not.
  • State v. Wisowaty 627 A.2d 572 N.H. 1993
    After his convictions were affirmed by this court, State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 580 A.2d 1079 (1990), the defendant moved for a new trial.
  • State v. Burley 627 A.2d 98 N.H. 1993
    We will therefore not consider the argument.
  • State v. Brinkman 621 A.2d 932 N.H. 1993
    103(b)(1); see State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607-08, 580 A.2d 1079, 1081 (1990) (New Hampshire Rules of Evidence do not contain provision parallel to Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a), which requires specific objection to admission of evidence “if the specific ground was not apparent from the context”).
  • State v. Smart 622 A.2d 1197 N.H. 1993
    State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607, 580 A.2d 1079, 1080 (1990) (issues not raised in trial court not considered on appeal).
  • State v. Eldredge 607 A.2d 617 N.H. 1992
    State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607, 580 A.2d 1079, 1081 (1990) (general objection not sufficient to preserve specific issue for appeal).
  • State v. Parra 604 A.2d 567 N.H. 1992
    State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607, 580 A.2d 1079, 1080 (1990) (specific issue must have been raised at trial in order to be considered for review).
  • State v. Nutter 600 A.2d 139 N.H. 1991
    We are not willing to adopt a plain error standard.
  • State v. Giordano 599 A.2d 109 N.H. 1991
    State v. Menard, 133 N.H. 708, 710, 584 A.2d 752, 754 (1990); State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 607, 580 A.2d 1079, 1080-81 (1990).
  • State v. Menard 584 A.2d 752 N.H. 1990
    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)).
  • State v. Coleman 584 A.2d 755 N.H. 1990
    it was his opinion that the person operating the vehicle had deliberately driven into the dumpster.” The State was thus able to present to the jury, through hearsay, that which it had been prohibited from presenting through the declarant, Gervais; namely, the opinion that the defendant had acted “deliberately.” We have recently noted in State v. Wisowaty, 133 N.H. 604, 580 A.2d 1079 (1990), that a general objection is not sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal.