Cited by

Although we recognize our long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised at the earliest possible time, the rationale behind the rule is that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.

The purpose behind our preservation rule is to allow trial courts the “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 (1991).

Therefore, because the evidentiary foundation for the issue is in the record and the trial court had an opportunity to correct any error, the matter has been preserved for appeal.

*786 We have recognized that “parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised at the earliest possible time.” State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407 (1991).

The purpose underlying our preservation rule, however, is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.

State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407 (1991) (issue preserved where defendant raised an issue in his motion to reconsider, his objection to the court’s default order was still before the appropriate trial forum, and “his earlier failure to raise the issue did not deprive the trial court of a full opportunity to correct its error”).

The plaintiff attempts to rely on our holding in State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991), that an issue is preserved for appeal to this court even though it is raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the trial court was given an opportunity to rule on its purported error to the extent that the defendant challenges the constitutionality of permitting the State to use criminal records during jury selection, see State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991), and to that extent we conclude that his arguments are preserved.

Because this issue is preserved for appellate review even though first raised in a motion to reconsider, see State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991), we reject this contention and consider the merits of her unclean hands argument.

State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 406-07, 593 A.2d 243, 244 (1991) (personal appearance of a party at a hearing is not required if that party is represented by counsel and has not been subpoenaed).

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s objection to the motion to abate provided the trial court and the school district with an adequate and timely opportunity to address the issue.

In this appeal, the petitioners have complied with the procedural requirements of RSA 541:4, and therefore the issue is properly before us. Cf. State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991) (even though issue was not raised at the earliest possible time, issue was preserved for appellate review where tribunal presented with opportunity to correct its own error).

Because the trial court was accorded an opportunity to rule on this issue of law, it was properly preserved for appellate review.

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).

“[T]he rationale behind the rule is 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).

Because the trial court was given the opportunity to correct the alleged error while the matter was still before it, the issue was preserved and is properly before this court.

Despite appellate counsel’s assurances during oral argument that the issue was raised in the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, see State v. Tselios, 134 N.H. 405, 407, 593 A.2d 243, 245 (1991) (issue raised in motion for reconsideration preserved for appellate review), the only reference to equal protection in the record below is a handwritten addendum to the plaintiff’s objection to the defendant’s motion to post security.

We have previously resolved this question in the State’s favor and do not address it further.

We conclude that the issue was timely raised in this case.

because’the evidentiary foundation was already in the case.