Cited by

See, e.g., State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230-31 (2000) (concluding that certain evidence was relevant for the non- propensity purpose of “undermin[ing] the defendant’s argument that she reasonably believed the alleged victim was about to use unlawful, deadly force against her”).3 We conclude that this evidence was not intrinsic to the charged offense; t

In contrast, the content of the defendant’s conversation with his mother was highly probative of his state of mind, a contested issue and a fact of consequence raised by the defendant’s self-defense claim.

In State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230-31 (2000), we held that a defendant’s state of mind is one of the “other purposes” for which “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” may be admissible under Rule 404(b) in a self-defense case.

Pepin, 156 N.H. at 278; see also State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230 (2000) (concluding that there was a sufficient logically significant connection between the defendant’s alleged prior assault of the victim and the charged conduct in part because they both involved the same victim and a similar weapon, and they both occurred under similar circumstances).

Sawtell, 152 N.H. at 182; see State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230-31 (2000).

In State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230 (2000), we determined that a defendant’s state of mind was one of the “other purposes” for which “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” may be admissible under Rule 404(b) in a self-defense case.

With respect to RSA 606:10 appeals, we have stated: “Although the Supreme Court Rules do not specify a time limit for the filing of appeals, by the State, they provide time limits for the filing of appeals generally.” State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 228 (2000).

In State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 230 (2000), we concluded that evidence of prior assaults was admissible because the prior conduct involved the same victim, a similar weapon, and occurred in a like circumstance.

His own admission of reprehensible and inappropriate conduct undoubtedly offended the jury.

In addition, Smalley filed a notice of self-defense, see RSA 627:4, II (a) (1996), thus placing his state of mind at issue, see State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 232 (2000).

Under Rule 404(b), “evidence of other bad acts is inadmissible unless it is relevant for a purpose other than to prove the defendant’s character or disposition, there is clear proof the defendant committed the other acts, and the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 229 (2000) (quotation omitted).

Evidence of other bad acts is admissible when: (1) it is relevant for a purpose other than to prove the defendant’s character or disposition; (2) there is clear proof that the defendant committed the acts; and (3) the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

“[E]vidence of other bad acts is inadmissible unless it is relevant for a purpose other than to prove the defendant’s character or disposition, there is clear proof the defendant committed the other acts, and the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 229 (2000) (quotation omitted).

“[E]vidence of other bad acts is inadmissible unless it is relevant for a purpose other than to prove the defendant’s character or disposition, there is clear proof the defendant committed the other acts, and the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” State v. Dukette, 145 N.H. 226, 231 (2000) (quotation omitted).