State v. Baird

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Craig

    167 N.H. 361 (N.H. 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming conviction for stalking based on a series of messages posted on the defendant's own Facebook profile that were directed to the victim and specifically rejecting the defendant's argument that "his Facebook posts cannot constitute contact because he merely posted publicly online without sending the posts directly to the victim"

    Given these facts, we find that a rational jury could have concluded that the statements that the defendant told the victim to make were in fact false and that the defendant believed that they were false. See id. (considering testimony and entirety of defendant's conduct to find sufficient evidence of witness tampering); State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 641, 581 A.2d 1313 (1990) (considering "the totality of the evidence presented" when evaluating falsity in witness tampering charge). The defendant next argues that the State did not prove that the defendant understood that he was asking the victim to give false testimony.

  2. State v. Bruce

    147 N.H. 37 (N.H. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that due process argument was preserved because, although trial counsel did not use term "due process," counsel sufficiently alerted trial judge "to the legal basis for his argument"

    The defendant is raising a different issue on appeal than was raised in superior court, and, therefore, we decline to address it. State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 640 (1990). Affirmed.

  3. State v. Bain

    145 N.H. 367 (N.H. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    The defendant's second preservation argument asserts that the State did not present the same argument to the trial court as it now makes on appeal in that its motion for reconsideration addressed only the alleged speedy trial violation, and not the propriety of dismissing the case for prosecutorial misconduct. It is well established that "this court will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court." State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 640, 581 A.2d 1313, 1315 (1990) (quotations 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."

  4. State v. Mills

    611 A.2d 1104 (N.H. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    In Mills, the defendant was convicted of second degree assault against a four-year-old and sought to introduce the recanted testimony of the victim in his motion for a new trial.

    "I think my main area for the objection is that when you asked him if he knew what would happen to him if he didn't tell the truth or it was important for him to tell the truth, I don't think he showed a clear understanding of the importance between telling the truth and not telling the truth." We have previously held that when the court is apprised of the general theory behind the objection such that "it is given an adequate opportunity to reconsider its ruling," this is sufficient to preserve the issue on appeal. State v. Pinardville Athletic Club, 134 N.H. 462, 465, 594 A.2d 1284, 1286 (1991); see also State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 640, 581 A.2d 1313, 1315 (1990); State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 224-25, 512 A.2d 427, 428 (1986). The defendant's objection, although specific in its wording, is sufficient to alert the court to the general nature of the defendant's theory.

  5. State v. Diaz

    134 N.H. 662 (N.H. 1991)   Cited 5 times
    Observing that "significant additional privacy interests ... arise at the threshold of the living quarters," including the defendant's rented motel room

    In addition to the oral argument presented to the court, this adequately raised before the trial court the issue of the validity of the warrantless entry of the defendant's motel room. See State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 640, 587 A.2d 1313, 1315 (1990) (although defense counsel's arguments did not clearly address specific issue, he nevertheless brought the defendant's claim to the trial court's attention). In response to the request to produce identification, the defendant indicated that it was in his nearby room, and readily agreed to get it.