Cited by

See, e.g., State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 483-84 (2009) (finding witness credibility an exception to Rule 404(b)); State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 648-49 (2006) (same).

In analyzing the applicability of the intrinsic evidence exception to Rule 404(b), we must remain mindful of the purpose of Rule 404(b), which is to “ensure that the defendant is tried on the merits of the crime as charged and to prevent a conviction based upon evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 647 (2006).

See, e.g., State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 648-49 (2006) (evidence of defendant’s abuse of his girlfriend, a prosecution witness, admissible to explain 4 her participation in criminal conduct and her initial false statements to police and was “highly relevant to her credibility, an issue vigorously pursued at tria

“The State bears the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of prior bad acts.” State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 647 (2006).

The purpose of Rule 404(b) is to ensure that the defendant is tried upon the merits of the crime as charged and to prevent a conviction based upon evidence of other crimes or wrongs.

Whether testimony is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule is for the trial court to determine.

State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 649 (2006) (applying the same evidentiary standard under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b)).

State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 648 (2006) (evidence of defendant’s abuse of collaborator was admissible to explain collaborator’s submission to defendant’s demands surrounding the crime and her delay in reporting).

Davidson, 163 N.H. at 469; State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 647 (2006).

State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 648-49 (2006) (evidence of the defendant’s abuse of his girlfriend, a prosecution witness, held admissible to explain her participation in criminal conduct, her delay in reporting, and her initial false statements to police); State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 747 (1993) (in witness tampering prosecution, testimony of d

has been established for determining the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b): “(1) the evidence must be relevant for a purpose other than proving the defendant’s character or disposition; (2) there must be clear proof that the defendant committed the act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 647 (2006).

Other bad acts evidence is admissible when: (1) it is relevant for a purpose other than proving the defendant’s character or disposition; (2) there is clear proof that the defendant committed the act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

We have established a three-part test for the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b): (1) the evidence must be relevant for a purpose other than proving the defendant’s character or disposition; (2) there must be clear proof that the defendant committed the act; and (3) the probative *558 value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its prejudice to the defendant.

Senter knew about the threats made against her by the Defendant,” it could “infer that this caused her to testify at trial in a manner that was inconsistent with earlier statements she gave to police officers who investigated this matter.” Senter’s alibi testimony and credibility were critical given that the identity of the gunman was hotly contested at trial.

We will reverse the trial court’s decision only if it was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.

Under the third prong of Rule 404(b), “evidence of prior bad acts is admissible if the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 649 (2006).

Pepin, 156 N.H. at 279; State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 652 (2006).

105; see also, e.g., State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 652 (2006); State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750 (1987).

The purpose of Rule 404(b) is to ensure that the defendant is tried on the merits of the crime as charged and to prevent a conviction based upon evidence of other crimes or wrongs.

We review this claim under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.