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. McAdams, 594 A.2d 1273.

23 citing documents.

  • In Re Nassar 943 A.2d 740 N.H. 2008
    We generally do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the court below.
  • State v. Brum 923 A.2d 1068 N.H. 2007
    Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.
  • State v. Veale 919 A.2d 794 N.H. 2007
    State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 448 (1991)(declining to merge direct and collateral avenues of review).
  • Tiberghein v. B.R. Jones Roofing Co. 856 A.2d 21 N.H. 2004
    State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 449-50 (1991) (Batchelder and Johnson, JJ., concurring specially).
  • LaMontagne Builders, Inc. v. Bowman Brook Purchase Group 837 A.2d 301 N.H. 2003
    “This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 447 (1991) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Winstead 836 A.2d 775 N.H. 2003
    “This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 447 (1991) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Wood 836 A.2d 771 N.H. 2003
    State v. Williams, 142 N.H. 662, 669 (1998); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445 (1991).
  • State v. Ayer 834 A.2d 277 N.H. 2003
    State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 449 (1991).
  • Followed New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. Butland 797 A.2d 860 N.H. 2002
    We adhere to this principle because the lower court must have the “opportunity to consider alleged errors and to take remedial measures when necessary.” State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 447 (1991) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Fortier 780 A.2d 1243 N.H. 2001
    Issues must be properly presented to the trial court in order to preserve them for appellate review.
  • State v. West 781 A.2d 16 N.H. 2001
    State v. Merritt, 143 N.H. 714, 722 (1999); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 446 (1991).
  • McNamara v. Moses 781 A.2d 1015 N.H. 2001
    The defendants did not raise this issue at trial; thus, the issue is not preserved for our review.
  • Followed State v. Caswell 769 A.2d 387 N.H. 2001
    “This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 447 (1991) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Martin 761 A.2d 500 N.H. 2000
    Moreover, even if the defendant had included his sufficiency of the evidence claim in his notice of appeal, it would not have been preserved for our review since he did not raise it in the trial court.
  • State v. Hammond 742 A.2d 532 N.H. 1999
    We have held that a defendant cannot raise sufficiency of the evidence claims on appeal for the first time.
  • State v. Porter 738 A.2d 1271 N.H. 1999
    Because the defendant did not object to the ruling, we will not review it on appeal.
  • State v. Devaney 657 A.2d 832 N.H. 1995
    Because the defendant never raised it below, we do not reach the merits of this issue.
  • State v. Roberts 622 A.2d 1225 N.H. 1993
    State v. Peterson, 135 N.H. 713, 714-15, 609 A.2d 749, 750-51 (1992); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 446, 594 A.2d 1273, 1273-74 (1991); State v. Menard, 133 N.H. 708, 712, 584 A.2d 752, 754-55 (1990); Sup.
  • Gosselin v. Gosselin 616 A.2d 1287 N.H. 1992
    The defendant also raises a due process claim, but as it was not presented below, we will not address it on appeal.
  • State v. Wilkinson 612 A.2d 926 N.H. 1992
    However, because the defendant did not ask for a hearing during the bench conference, the issue was not preserved for review.
  • State v. Mills 611 A.2d 1104 N.H. 1992
    Accordingly, the other grounds not having been properly preserved, they will not be considered on appeal.
  • State v. McLaughlin 610 A.2d 809 N.H. 1992
    We see no reason to depart from our well-established rule, recently reaffirmed in State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 594 A.2d 1273 (1991), that an objection below is required in order to preserve an issue for appellate review.
  • State v. Brodowski 600 A.2d 925 N.H. 1991
    “This court has consistently held that we ‘will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.’” State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 447, 594 A.2d 1273, 1273 (1991) (quoting State v. LaLiberte, 124 N.H. 621, 621, 474 A.2d 1025, 1025 (1984)); Perron v. City of Somersworth, 131 N.H. 303, 305, 553 A.2d 283, 284 (1988) (axiomatic that matters ignored in the trial court may not be raised on appeal).