State v. Prudent

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Mueller

    166 N.H. 65 (N.H. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    When reviewing jury instructions, "we evaluate allegations of error by interpreting the disputed instructions in their entirety, as a reasonable juror would have understood them, and in light of all the evidence in the case." State v. Prudent, 161 N.H. 320, 324, 13 A.3d 181 (2010) (citation omitted). Although under RSA 626:2, IV (2007) a requirement that an offense be committed "wilfully" is generally satisfied if the defendant "acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense," this statute merely establishes a default rule that is subject to exceptions where "a purpose to impose further requirements appears" in the statute defining the crime.

  2. State v. Sprague

    166 N.H. 29 (N.H. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The State bears the burden of proving that an error is harmless, a burden satisfied by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the erroneously admitted evidence did not affect the verdict. See State v. Prudent, 161 N.H. 320, 323, 13 A.3d 181 (2010). In deciding whether the State has met its burden, we consider the strength of the alternative evidence presented at trial.

  3. State v. Brooks

    162 N.H. 570 (N.H. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    “It is well settled that the erroneous admission of evidence may be harmless if the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by the admission.” State v. Prudent, 161 N.H. 320, 323, 13 A.3d 181 (2010) (quotation omitted). An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of the defendant's guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight, and if the evidence that was improperly admitted or excluded is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State's evidence of guilt.

  4. Sayles v. State

    245 Md. App. 128 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    At least one court has characterized a somewhat similar pattern jury instruction as "the equivalent of a jury nullification instruction." State v. Prudent , 161 N.H. 320, 324-25, 13 A.3d 181 (2010). The New Hampshire pattern instruction at issue in Prudent provided that a jury "must" find a defendant not guilty in the presence of reasonable doubt, but only "should" find a defendant guilty in the absence of reasonable doubt.