opportunity to correct error in New Hampshire

2022In the Matter of Mannion & Mannion, 155 N.H. 52, 54 (2007).

2021In the Matter of Mannion & Mannion, 155 N.H. 52, 54 (2007).

1992This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587 , 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (citations and quotations omitted); State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125 , 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985) (absent contemporaneous objection, untimely request for jury instructions does not give notice to the court necessary to preserve an issue addressed by the requested instruction).

1992This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587 , 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (citations and quotations omitted); State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125 , 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985) (absent contemporaneous objection, untimely request for jury instructions does not give notice to the court necessary to preserve an issue addressed by the requested instruction).

1998This requirement “affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564 , 607 A.2d 617, 618 (1992) (quotation omitted).

1998This requirement “affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564 , 607 A.2d 617, 618 (1992) (quotation omitted).

2010This rule, based on “common sense and judicial economy,” Johnson, 130 N.H. at 587 , affords a “trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made,” Ainsworth, 151 N.H. at 698 .

1992This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587 , 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (citations and quotations omitted); State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125 , 489 A.2d 623, 626 (1985) (absent contemporaneous objection, untimely request for jury instructions does not give notice to the court necessary to preserve an issue addressed by the requested instruction).

2022“This requirement affords the trial court the opportunity to correct an error it may have made, or clearly explain why it did not make an error.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2000This requirement affords the trial court the opportunity to correct an error it may have made, or clearly explain why it did not make an error.” State v. Sullivan, 142 N.H. 399, 403 , 702 A.2d 339, 342 (1997) (quotation and citation omitted).

2006Berliner v. Clukay, 150 N.H. 80, 82-83 (2003) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

2006The requirement that parties make specific, contemporaneous objections “is grounded in both judicial economy and common sense, affording the trial court the opportunity to correct an error it may have made, or clearly explaining why it did not make an error.” Berliner v. Clukay, 150 N.H. 80, 82-83 (2003) (quotations omitted).

2018See State v. Mouser , 168 N.H. 19 , 27, 119 A.3d 870 (2015) ; State v. Town , 163 N.H. 790 , 792, 48 A.3d 966 (2012).

2018See State v. Mouser , 168 N.H. 19 , 27, 119 A.3d 870 (2015) ; State v. Town , 163 N.H. 790 , 792, 48 A.3d 966 (2012) ; cf .

2003“This requirement affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Sinbandith, 143 N.H. 579, 581 (1999) (quotation omitted).

2003Providing the trial court with the opportunity to correct error “is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Sinbandith, 143 N.H. 579, 581 (1999) (quotation omitted).

2000“The purpose of our preservation requirement is to ensure that the trial court is made aware of the substance of the objection and thus given an opportunity to correct the error . . . .” State v. Cole, 142 N.H. 519, 521, 703 A.2d 658, 659 (1997).

2000“The purpose of our preservation requirement is to ensure that the trial court is made aware of the substance of the objection and thus given an opportunity to correct the error . . . .” State v. Cole, 142 N.H. 519, 521, 703 A.2d 658, 659 (1997).

1999“This requirement affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Seymour, 142 N.H. 620, 624 , 707 A.2d 130, 133 (1998) (quotation omitted).

1999“This requirement affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” State v. Seymour, 142 N.H. 620, 624 , 707 A.2d 130, 133 (1998) (quotation omitted).

2010Id. at 693-94 .

2010This rule, based on “common sense and judicial economy,” Johnson, 130 N.H. at 587 , affords a “trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made,” Ainsworth, 151 N.H. at 698 .

2005Id.

2003“This requirement affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made and ... is grounded in common sense and judicial economy----” Transmedia Restaurant Co. v. Devereaux, 149 N.H. 454, 457 (2003) (quotations and citation omitted).

2019Mortgage Specialists v. Davey, 153 N.H. 764, 786 (2006).

2013Our case law distinguishes between what we have called a “theory of defense” and a “theory of the case.” A trial court must instruct a jury on a defendant’s “theory of defense,” but not on a “theory of the case.” See State v. Bruneau, 131 N.H. 104, 117-18 (1988).

2013See State v. Perri, 164 N.H. 400, 410 (2012) (refusing to consider a jury instruction that the defendant did not request); cf. State v. Blomquist, 153 N.H. 216, 223 (2006) (“Providing the trial court with the opportunity to correct error is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” (quotation omitted)).

2013See State v. Perri, 164 N.H. 400, 410 (2012) (refusing to consider a jury instruction that the defendant did not request); cf. State v. Blomquist, 153 N.H. 216, 223 (2006) (“Providing the trial court with the opportunity to correct error is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction.” (quotation omitted)).

2012Cf id. at 348 (finding it unnecessary for defense counsel to object to the jury instruction itself where the court had informed counsel that it would decide what the substance of the instruction would be and “was already aware of the substance of defense counsel’s request”); State v. King, 136 N.H. 674, 677 (1993) (finding issue preserved where it was clear from the court’s comments that it understood defense counsel’s objection to a jury instruction and that it had an opportunity to correct the error).

2012Cf id. at 348 (finding it unnecessary for defense counsel to object to the jury instruction itself where the court had informed counsel that it would decide what the substance of the instruction would be and “was already aware of the substance of defense counsel’s request”); State v. King, 136 N.H. 674, 677 (1993) (finding issue preserved where it was clear from the court’s comments that it understood defense counsel’s objection to a jury instruction and that it had an opportunity to correct the error).

2003“This longstanding requirement is grounded in common sense and judicial economy, and applies equally to civil and criminal matters.” State v. McCabe, 145 N.H. 686, 690 (2001) (quotation omitted).

1997The defendant concedes that “defense counsel did not expressly invoke the defendant’s right to testify in his objection,” because he argued only that “tactically I need to know in advance how the Court’s going to rule on this issue before I proceed.” The defendant argues that the constitutional issue was preserved nonetheless because the “judge’s response indicates he understood that the defense wanted a ruling so the defendant could decide whether he should testify.” The purpose of our preservation requirement is to ensure that the trial court is made aware of the substance of the objection a

1997The defendant concedes that “defense counsel did not expressly invoke the defendant’s right to testify in his objection,” because he argued only that “tactically I need to know in advance how the Court’s going to rule on this issue before I proceed.” The defendant argues that the constitutional issue was preserved nonetheless because the “judge’s response indicates he understood that the defense wanted a ruling so the defendant could decide whether he should testify.” The purpose of our preservation requirement is to ensure that the trial court is made aware of the substance of the objection a