Under New Hampshire's self-defense statute, a defendant is "justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself ... from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person." RSA 627:4, I (2016); see State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 307, 127 A.3d 672 (2015). Self-defense is a pure defense under New Hampshire law.

The plain error rule allows us to consider issues that were not raised in the trial court. State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310 (2015). We apply the rule sparingly - its use is limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

tituted harmless error."); cf. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ("Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts."); State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 165, 125 A.3d 729 (2015) (citing Delaware, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431). 817The factors that we have considered in assessing whether an error did not affect the verdict include, but are not limited to: (1) the strength of the State’s case, see State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158, 652 A.2d 671 (1994); (2) whether the admitted or excluded evidence is cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s case, see State v. Lemieux, 136 N.H. 329, 331-32, 615 A.2d 635 (1992); (3) the frequency of the error, see State v. Bujnowski, 130 N.H. 1, 5-6, 532 A.2d 1385 (1987); (4) the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the erroneously admitted or excluded evidence, see State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 306, 127 A.3d 672 (2015); (5) the nature of the defense, see State v. Brown, 128 N.H. 606, 611, 517 A.2d 831 (1986); (6) the cir- cumstances in which the evidence was introduced at trial, see State v. Thibedau, 142 N.H. 325, 330, 702 A.2d 299 (1997); (7) whether the court took any curative steps, see State v. Munson, 126 N.H. 191, 193, 489 A.2d 646 (1985); (8) whether the evidence is of an inflammatory nature, see State v. Dumais, 126 N.H. 532, 535, 493 A.2d 501 (1985); and (9) whether the other evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, see id. No one factor is dispositive.

Because we have not yet had occasion to address the applicability of RSA 604-A:2-f to this type of fine, and given the parties' divergent and plausible interpretations of the statute and applicable case law, we cannot say that any error that the trial court might have committed by not invoking this statute sua sponte would have been plain error. See State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 312 (2015).

[A]ccordingly, much must be left to the discretion of the trial court in admitting or rejecting such testimony." State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 302-03, 127 A.3d 672 (2015) (quotation omitted). When deciding whether a statement is an excited utterance, the trial court must consider, in addition to the time elapsed, "all other circumstances surrounding the statements," including the nature of the exciting event and the declarant's state of mind.

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310, 127 A.3d 672 (2015). 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.

For us 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. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310, 127 A.3d 672 (2015). For the following reasons, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the challenged statements constituted error.

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors that were not raised in the trial court. State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310, 127 A.3d 672 (2015). "We apply the rule sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result."

Plain error should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. State v. Pennock, 168 N.H. 294, 310, 127 A.3d 672 (2015). 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.