Cited by

These rules apply to all parties, including those who are self-represented.

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100–01 (1999) (concluding defendant’s claim that “the trial court erred in precluding him from cross-examining the victim” was not preserved where “defendant did not object to the trial court’s ruling, but rather acquiesced to it”).

Id.; see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules of preservation are not relaxed for self-represented parties).

These rules are not relaxed for a self-represented party.

These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties.

These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties.

2 Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant preserved a state constitutional issue for review, but see State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986) (to preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must raise it in the trial court and specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules of preservation are not relaxed for a self-represented party), we cannot conclude that he was deprived a fair opportunity to pre

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (Rules of preservation are not relaxed for a self-represented party.).

Div. R. 1.26(F); N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (Rules of preservation are not relaxed for a self-represented party.).

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 99-100 (1999) (affirming denial of in camera review because victim’s alleged emotional instability, alcoholism, and failure to follow treatment recommendations had no bearing on her character for truthfulness at trial).

In the Matter of Peirano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 744 (2007) (appellant must demonstrate that he preserved his issues for appellate review by first raising them in trial court); see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules of preservation are not relaxed for a self-represented party).

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100 (1999) (declining to review defendant’s argument that he was precluded' from cross-examining the victim where defendant “did not object to the trial court’s ruling, but rather acquiesced to it”).

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (citing the general principle that “rules of preservation are not relaxed for a pro se [litigant]”).

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 102 (1999) (preservation of issue for appeal requires contemporaneous and specific objection).

(quotation omitted); State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 102 (1999).

State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 98 (1999); State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001).

We affirmed his convictions in State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96 (1999), but remanded to superior court for resentencing.

Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128 (1995); see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules regarding preservation of issues on appeal not relaxed for pro se litigants).

Under Rules 404(a)(2) and 405, proof of specific instances of a victim’s conduct is admissible “only when the victim’s character or trait of character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense.” State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 99 (1999).

Quirk v. Town of New Boston, 140 N.H. 124, 128, 663 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1995); see also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01, 738 A.2d 1271, 1275 (1999) (rules regarding preservation of issues on appeal not relaxed for pro se litigants).