Cited by

An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight, and if the inadmissible evidence is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s evidence of guilt.” State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 75 (2003) (quotation and citation omitted).

State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 74 (2003) (quotation omitted).

“The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 81 (2003).

*80 Errors that partially or completely deny a defendant the right to the basic trial process, such as the introduction of a coerced confession, the complete denial of a defendant’s right to counsel, or adjudication by a biased judge, rise to the level of fundamental unfairness, thereby obviating consideration of the harmless error doctrine.

(finding introduction of prior disclosures admissible to explain delay); State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 82 (2003) (holding admissible evidence that defendant threatened to kill himself if victim disclosed sexual assault as explanation for delay in disclosure); Berry, 148 N.H. at 91 (holding physical abuse of victim admissible to explain delay in reporting sexual assaults because victim testified she lived in constant f

The defendant appealed and we affirmed his convictions in State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70 (2003).

The State bears the burden of proving that the error did not affect the outcome of the proceeding.

State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 77 (2003); see also State v. Seymour, 142 N.H. 620, 622 (1998).

In State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 75 (2003), in dicta, we stated that admission of a coerced confession was an error to which the harmless error doctrine did not apply.

The basis for granting a mistrial is the existence of circumstances which indicate that justice may not be done if the trial continues to verdict.

State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 74 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Thus, we need not determine whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support conviction, see State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 78 (2003), but rather limit our review to the admissibility of the unweighed packets.

“For us to hold that an error was harmless, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.” State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 75 (2003).

State v. Dupont, 149 N.H. 70, 74 (2003) (quotation omitted).