Cited by

State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 634 (1990) (explaining that where an error is akin to the direction of a verdict for the prosecution on an element of the offense charged, it is a constitutional error requiring reversal).

State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 633 (1990); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (“[T]he Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”).

require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case.” State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 634 (1990) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).

he right to the basic trial process, and thus is not subject to harmless error analysis” (brackets, quotations and citation omitted)); State v. Hall, 148 N.H. 394, 400 (2002) (holding jury instruction amounting to presumption of defendant’s mental state, the only element at issue, “requires reversal of the defendant’s conviction and is not amenable to harmless error analysis”); State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 633-34 (1990) (holding that in'a securities fraud case, instructing jury that certain

“[0]nly such constitutional errors as necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case.” State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 634 (1990) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

Our statement was based upon a pre-Fulminante decision, State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 634 (1990).

Although we have never expressly adopted the federal distinction between a “structural defect” and a “trial error,” we have recognized that certain constitutional errors necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair and require reversal without regard to the evidence in the particular case.

There are instances, however, when the erroneous admission of evidence is so prejudicial that reversal is required without regard to the evidence in a particular case.

Part I, Article 15 also “entities] a criminal defendant to a jury determination on all factual elements of the crime charged.” State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 633 (1990).

By 1987, Blondheim was under investigation by the Hillsborough County Grand Jury for theft and securities fraud.

As we explained in State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 633, 581 A.2d 78, 80 (1990), part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a jury determination on all the factual elements of the crime charged.

State v. Williams, 133 N.H. 631, 635, 581 A.2d 78, 81 (1990) (permitting the State to aggregate “assuming proof of a common theft scheme”); see also State v. Merrill, 44 N.H. 624 (1863).

Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s resisting arrest convictions and remand.