State of New Hampshire v. Louise E. Pinault

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint was untimely, and, consequently, applying plain error review, when the defendant raised the issue for the first time after trial
• holding that damage to a mailbox caused by the defendant’s vehicle was not the direct result of the defendant’s act of leaving the scene of the accident, the basis of her conviction
• explaining that, when interpreting statutes, “[w]e first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning”
• assuming, without deciding, that the first two prongs were met and determining that the defendant failed to satisfy the third
• addressing RSA 651:62, III (2016), which limits restitution to loss incurred “as a direct result of a criminal offense”
• finding alleged deficiency in complaint was not shown to constitute plain error where defendant “made no showing, nor even argued, that the complaint limited her ability to prepare for trial or that she would have prepared for trial differently” absent the alleged deficiency (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).