State v. Ryan, 90-548
| Decision Date | 22 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-548,90-548 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. Robert K. RYAN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
The defendant, Robert K. Ryan, was convicted by a jury of burglary, felonious use of a firearm, and two counts of kidnapping. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant moved to vacate the convictions because the Superior Court (Mohl, J.) had failed to select the foreperson of the jury in a random manner. This motion was denied and the defendant appealed. We affirm.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by specifically selecting juror number three as the foreperson and then randomly designating by lot the two alternates. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant asked the court to explain how it had selected the foreperson. The court stated that:
The defendant objected and moved to vacate the conviction. This motion was denied.
The defendant argues that the court's non-random selection of the foreperson violated his right, as guaranteed by part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, to a fair and impartial jury of his peers. He suggests that the court's action conveyed to the jury that the foreperson's thoughts or ideas were somehow valued by the court. The State responds that this issue is not properly before us because the defendant did not contemporaneously object to the selection of the foreperson.
It is well settled that preservation of an issue for appeal requires a contemporaneous and specific objection. See State v. Menard, 133 N.H. 708, 711, 584 A.2d 752, 754 (1990). "This requirement, grounded in common sense and judicial economy, 'affords the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may have made....' " State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 587, 547 A.2d 213, 218 (1988) (quoting State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120, 125, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McMinn, 95-707
...remedial action by the trial court, see Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 167-68, 614 A.2d 600, 609 (1992); State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 588-89, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992), and when the vagueness and generality of an objection failed to alert the trial court to the basis of the argument, see ......
-
State v. Colbert, s. 92-517
...he did not object below to any aspect of the substitution process. See id. at 312, 616 A.2d at 470-71; see also State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 588-89, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992). For the same reasons, Colbert's due process claim is not properly before Regarding the twelve-person jury issue, Col......
-
State v. Cole
...is made aware of the substance of the objection and thus given an opportunity to correct the error, see , e.g. , State v. Ryan , 135 N.H. 587, 589, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992), and to discourage "parties unhappy with the trial result [from combing] the record, endeavoring to find some alleged ......
-
State v. Cole, 95-863
...trial court is made aware of the substance of the objection and thus given an opportunity to correct the error, see, e.g., State v. Ryan, 135 N.H. 587, 589, 607 A.2d 954, 955 (1992), and to discourage "parties unhappy with the trial result [from combing] the record, endeavoring to find some......