Opinion ID: 1887538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Silly Putty

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial court's decision to allow the victim to hold Silly Putty in her hands violated his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15; U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV. The defendant, however, has not preserved either of these arguments for our review. The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review. State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246, 836 A.2d 775 (2003). The objection must state explicitly the specific ground of objection. Id. In the trial court, the defendant objected on the ground that to allow the victim to hold Silly Putty while testifying would make her appear more helpless than she might otherwise be evaluated by the jury, and that the State had failed to establish a compelling need to allow her to hold the Silly Putty. The defendant never made reference to due process, fair trial, right to confront, or any other phrase that might have alerted the trial court that he intended to raise a constitutional argument. Nor did he ever identify a constitutional provision that was allegedly violated. This case is unlike others in which we have held that a defendant has preserved a constitutional claim even though he never cited a specific constitutional provision in the trial court. See State v. Demeritt, 148 N.H. 435, 439, 813 A.2d 393 (2002); State v. Bruce, 147 N.H. 37, 40, 780 A.2d 1270 (2001). For example, in Bruce, the record showed that the defendant had specifically argued that the loss of exculpatory evidence had violated his right to a fair trial. Bruce, 147 N.H. at 40, 780 A.2d 1270. While the defendant never used the phrase due process, we held that the fact that counsel specifically used the term exculpatory evidence and invoked the right to a fair trial was sufficient to alert the trial judge to the legal basis for his argument and to preserve the issue for appeal. Id. Similarly, in Demeritt, although defense counsel never cited a specific rule or constitutional provision, we held that he sufficiently alerted the trial court that he was raising a due process argument by asking the court to follow the rule set forth in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), a seminal due process case. Demeritt, 148 N.H. at 439, 813 A.2d 393. By contrast, in this case, there was nothing to make clear to the trial judge that either due process or the defendant's right to confrontation was the basis of his objection. In light of this record, we hold that he has failed to preserve either a state or a federal constitutional claim. See State v. Gaffney, 147 N.H. 550, 554, 795 A.2d 243 (2002).