Cited by

See, e.g., State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 644-46, 647 (1997) (explaining that “our function in reviewing the trial court’s refusal to provide a requested [theory of] defense instruction is to search the record for evidence supporting the defendant’s request,” holding that defendant was entitled to self-defense instruction, and reversing conviction on relevan

In re Eduardo L., 136 N.H. 678, 689 (1993); State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997) (the general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review).

The defendant, relying on State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636 (1997), asserts that the court’s failure to instruct the jury on self-defense is “reversible error.” See McMinn, 141 N.H. at 644-45 (concluding that trial court erred when it refused to instruct jury on self-defense theory and reversing conviction without considering whether the trial court’s failure to give the instr

“[O]ur function in reviewing the trial court’s refusal to provide a requested self-defense instruction is to search the record for evidence supporting the defendant’s request.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 646 (1997) (quotation and brackets omitted).

State v. Richard, 160 N.H. 780, 788 (2010); State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 640-41 (1997).

“A requested instruction on a party’s theory of defense must be given if such theory is supported by some evidence, and refusal to charge on that defense is reversible error.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 644-45 (1997) (quotation omitted).

We have often explained that the purpose of our preservation rule is to insure that trial forums have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before parties seek appellate review.

Moreover, when evidence of self-defense is admitted, conduct negating the defense becomes an element of *81 the charged offense, see RSA 625:11, III(c) (1996), which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, RSA 625:10 (1996).

Where, as here, there is some evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 645 (1997); see RSA 625:10,:11, III(c) (2007).

State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997); State v. McAdams, 134 N.H. 445, 449 (1991).

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997) (quotation omitted).

“[0]ur function in reviewing the trial court’s refusal to *570 provide a requested self-defense instruction is to search the record for evidence supporting the defendant’s request.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 646 (1997) (quotation and bracket omitted).

A contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997) (quotation omitted).

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642 (1997) (quotation omitted).

The preservation requirement recognizes that generally, trial courts “should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642, 690 A.2d 1017, 1021 (1997) (quotations omitted).

“[W]hen evidence of self-defense is admitted, conduct negating the defense becomes an element of the charged offense, which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 645, 690 A.2d 1017, 1023 (1997) (citations omitted).

In general, a defendant must make a specific and contemporaneous objection during trial to preserve an issue for appellate review.

Under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 103(b)(1), a contemporaneous and specific objection at trial is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

Thus, the defendant cannot now claim error concerning the court’s failure to take “corrective action.” See State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 644, 690 A.2d 1017, 1022 (1997) (defendant bears burden to request curative instruction).

“The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.” State v. McMinn, 141 N.H. 636, 642, 690 A.2d 1017, 1021 (1997) (quotation omitted); see N.H. R. Ev.