Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in New Hampshire

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“Even though offenses have been properly joined, the court nonetheless may order separate trials if joinder would prejudice the defendant.” (See State v. Ramos (2003) 149 N.H. 118, 124.)

“Any undue complexity of prejudicial confusion will be vitiated by separate trials.” (See Van Miller v. Hutchins (1978) 118 N.H. 204, 206.)

“Ordinarily the determination by the Trial Court that the issues joined cannot be justly and conveniently tried together is a determination of a question of fact.” (See Morley v. Clairmont (1969) 110 N.H. 12, 14.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

Subsection H of Rule 10 of the New Hampshire Superior Court Rules governs bifurcation.

The rule states that “for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims or third party claims.” (See N.H. R. Super. Ct. 10(h).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“Determinations of whether to bifurcate a case or sever the issues before the court are committed to the trial court's sound discretion.” (See Stewart v. Bader (2006) 154 N.H. 75, 86; Blevens v. Town of Bow (2001) 146 N.H. 67, 72, 767 A.2d 446.)

"The manner and timing of the trial of all or part of the issues in an action is a question of justice and convenience within the discretion of the trial judge, whose findings will not be disturbed absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” (See id; cf. State v. Lambert (2001) 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175 [explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard].)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

It is well settled that when “severing the charges would cause evidentiary chaos because ... a significant overlap of the facts would be mutually admissible at the respective trials,” bifurcation should be denied by the court. (See State v. Girard (2020) 173 N.H. 619, 623.)

It is also well settled that “whether all or a part of the issues in an action shall be tried at one time, and the order in which they shall be tried if determined separately, is a question of justice and convenience usually settled by the superior court.” (See Glover v. Baker (1912) 76 N.H. 393, 395.)