Cited by

In cases involving lost evidence, once a defendant demonstrates that the State has lost or destroyed apparently relevant evidence, the State has the 3 burden of demonstrating that it acted both with good faith, in the sense that it was free of any intent to prejudice the defendant, and without culpable negligence.

Barnet, 159 N.H. at 470 (explaining that a showing of actual prejudice is required); State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 96 (1993) (noting that “[m]ore than mere speculation as to.

Because we assume that the jury follows the instructions given by the trial court, we conclude that the jury did not consider the challenged testimony as evidence that the alleged assaults occurred.

State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 95 (1993) (“Culpable negligence is something more than ordinary negligence, mere neglect, or the failure to use ordinary care — it is negligence that is censorious, faulty or blamable.”).

“A trial court’s denial of a mistrial will not be overturned absent an [unsustainable exercise] of discretion, due to the trial court’s unique ability to gauge the reaction of the jury to any potentially prejudicial information.” State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

We generally presume that jurors follow the trial court’s instructions.

State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94-95 (1993) (quotation omitted).

Because the Federal Constitution offers no more protection than our State Constitution, we need not conduct a separate federal analysis.

Mistrial is the proper remedy only if the testimony complained of “was not merely improper, but also so prejudicial that it constitutes an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94 (1993) (quotation omitted).

State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 93, 635 A.2d 482, 483 (1993) (because “defendant did not frame an argument in constitutional terms below,” he cannot do so on appeal).

“Mistrial is the proper remedy only if the evidence or comment complained of was not merely improper, but also so prejudicial that it constitutes an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94, 635 A.2d 482, 484 (1993) (quotation omitted).

Turning to the merits of the defendant’s argument based on the effect of LaBonville’s false testimony, we review the trial court’s denial of the mistrial request for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Weir, 138 N.H. 671, 674, 645 A.2d 56, 57 (1994) (decision to disqualify juror); State v. Giordano, 138 N.H. 90, 94, 635 A.2d 482, 484 (1993) (denial of mistrial motion); Nat’l Marine Underwriters v. McCormack, 138 N.H. 6, 8, 634 A.2d 1008, 1010 (1993) (decision on motion to amend pleadings); State v. Jaroma, 137 N.H. 562, 571-72, 630 A.2d 1173, 1179 (1993) (decision whether to grant continuance).

I, art. 15, because he did not raise it below.

As the question of whether a procedural due process violation occurred was never properly presented to the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.

Arris also raises several constitutional arguments, but as none of them were raised below, we do not address them.