Cited by

Our goal is to apply statutes in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutory scheme.

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 418 (2013).

The trial court’s determination of a juror’s impartiality “‘is essentially one of credibility, and therefore largely one of demeanor.’” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 447 (2013) (quoting Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038 (1984)).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 448 (2013).

The preponderance of the evidence standard “requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence”; “evidence that fails to meet this standard is at least as likely to be false as it is true.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 590 (2013) (quotation omitted).

“Reviewing the history of the constitution and its amendments is often instructive, and in so doing, it is the court’s duty to place itself as nearly as possible in the situation of the parties at the time the instrument was made, that it may gather their intention from the language used, viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 565-66 (2013) (quotation omitted).

Because we have resolved this case by interpreting RSA 170-G:4, it is not necessary to address DCYF’s constitutional arguments.

Under New Hampshire law, “[a] prosecutor has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.” State v. Addison, 165 N.H. 381, 547 (2013) (quotation omitted).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 447 (2013).

“[W]e consider the challenged remarks in the context of the case.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 548 (2013); see also United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33 (1988) (stating “prosecutorial comment must be examined in context”).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 562-63 (2013).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 463 (2013).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 419 (2013) (“[W]e review the propriety of the trial court’s pretrial rulings in the context in which evidentiary disputes were presented to the court.”); cf. State v. Gordon, 161 N.H. 410, 414 (2011) (“Because the trial court ruled upon the admissibility of the challenged evidence before trial, we consider only the o

“Under New Hampshire law, a prosecutor has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.” State v. Addison, 165 N.H. 381, 547 (2013) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Thus, because we decide constitutional questions only when necessary, see State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 418 (2013), we first consider the statutory construction issue.

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 467 (2013) (reasoning that evidence of the defendant’s participation in other crimes was probative of the defendant’s motive and intent to “take extreme measures to avoid capture”), cert.

at 137-41 Indeed, the defendant “does not argue that the jury that did sit on his case was not impartial.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 449 (2013).

A “structural error” is a constitutional error that necessarily renders a criminal trial so fundamentally unfair that it “cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for the determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 452 (2013) (quotation omitted).

“The purpose of the rule is to ensure that an accused is tried on the merits of the crime charged and to prevent a conviction that is based upon propensity and character inferences drawn from evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 463 (2013).

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 418 (2013).

State v. Addison, 165 N.H. 381, 443 (2013) (we assume trial court made all findings necessary to support its decision).

State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 412 (2013); see RSA 630:5, X-XII (2007).

“It is well established that due process requires that an accused must receive a trial by a fair and impartial jury.” State v. Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. 381, 425 (2013) (quotation omitted).

“Because we decide cases on constitutional grounds only when necessary, when a claim of error is based upon both a statutory provision and a constitutional provision, we first will address the statutory argument.” State v. Addison, 165 N.H. 381, 418 (2013).