State v. Matey

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. White

    163 N.H. 303 (N.H. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Addressing due process

    Our review of the trial court's legal conclusions, however, is de novo.” State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 268, 891 A.2d 592 (2006) (quotation omitted). The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

  2. State v. Pandelena

    161 N.H. 326 (N.H. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Defining what causes error to be plain

    Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006). " A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the attention of the trial court or the supreme court."

  3. State v. Russell

    159 N.H. 475 (N.H. 2009)   Cited 31 times
    Finding witness credibility an exception to Rule 404(b)

    Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006). “A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the attention of the trial court or the supreme court.”

  4. State v. Lopez

    156 N.H. 416 (N.H. 2007)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that trial court did not err by excluding evidence that defendant had cried during an interview with police when he had been permitted to introduce other evidence that he had cried when speaking with his family prior to and during his arrest

    The plain error rule allows us to consider errors not brought to the attention of the trial court. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006). However, the rule should be used sparingly, and should be limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

  5. Aranosian Oil Co. v. State

    168 N.H. 322 (N.H. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    To find plain error: "(1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006) (quotation omitted). The petitioners simply assert that their "omission of this argument at the Superior Court level was a plain error that affects the Petitioners' substantial rights and the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings," without setting forth any analysis establishing that the review they seek satisfies the requirements of plain error.

  6. State v. Towle

    167 N.H. 315 (N.H. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    Further, because the sentence is illegal to the extent that the trial court exceeded its authority under RSA 651:2, the third and fourth elements of the plain error rule have been satisfied. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the sentence that imposed the no-contact order.

  7. State v. Carr

    167 N.H. 264 (N.H. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    "For the purpose of double jeopardy analysis, two charged offenses cannot be regarded as the same offense if they do not arise out of the same act or transaction." Fischer, 165 N.H. at 715, 82 A.3d 891 (quotation omitted); see also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ; cf.State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 270–71, 891 A.2d 592 (2006) (deciding whether two offenses are the "same" for right to counsel purposes). Here, the defendant was charged with witness tampering during two separate telephone conversations.

  8. State v. Fischer

    165 N.H. 706 (N.H. 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that the fact that an assault in the living room and a later assault in the kitchen "resulted in injuries to the victim's head and neck does not establish that they arose out of the same act or transaction"

    For the purpose of double jeopardy analysis, two charged offenses cannot be regarded as the same offense if they do not arise out of the "same act or transaction." See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ; State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 270, 891 A.2d 592 (2006) ; see also State v. Hull, 149 N.H. 706, 717, 827 A.2d 1001 (2003). Here, the defendant was charged with two separate incidents of assault—the first took place in the living room and, sometime thereafter, the second occurred in the kitchen.

  9. State v. Watkins

    362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012)   Cited 230 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the same elements test in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, is the applicable test in Tennessee for determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes constitute the same offense for double jeopardy principles

    First, the threshold inquiry under Blockburger is whether the alleged statutory violations arise from “the same act or transaction.” See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 301–04, 52 S.Ct. 180 (considering first whether two sales made to the same person arose from “the same act or transaction” before determining whether “the same act or transaction” constituted “a violation of two distinct statutory provisions”); see also State v. Thompson, 197 Conn. 67, 495 A.2d 1054, 1058 (1985); Schoonover, 133 P.3d at 62; State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 891 A.2d 592, 599 (2006); George C. Thomas III, A Blameworthy Act Approach to the Double Jeopardy Same Offense Problem, 83 Cal. L.Rev. 1027, 1035 n.34 (1995) (noting that the “threshold same-act requirement must be satisfied before it makes sense to compare statutory act-types”). This “inquiry does not determine whether there is a double jeopardy violation; rather it determines only if there could be a violation.”

  10. State v. Guay

    162 N.H. 375 (N.H. 2011)   Cited 22 times
    Upholding trial court's denial of mistrial, in part, because court instructed jury to ignore victim's outburst during defendant's testimony

    Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court. State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263, 266, 891 A.2d 592 (2006); see Sup.Ct. R. 16–A. “However, the rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”