Cited by

When exercising its discretion under Rule 608(b), the trial court must also consider Rule 403.

State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417 (2007) (quotation omitted).

To the extent that the defendant argues that the fact that the trooper put the wrong year on a form called into question the trooper’s judgment, we decline to address this argument because the defendant did not raise it in the trial court.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.

“Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417 (2007) (citation omitted).

“The opportunity to impeach a witness’s credibility through cross-examination is an incident of rights guaranteed by part I, article 15 of the State Constitution.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 416 (2007) (quotation omitted); see State v. Etienne, 146 N.H. 115, 117 (2001) (right to cross-examine adverse witnesses in criminal cases is fundamental).

Thus, the defendant is permitted to introduce extrinsic evidence of the victim’s prior allegations where “the prior allegations were demonstrably false, which we interpret to mean clearly and convincingly untrue.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 414 (2007) (quotations omitted).

We require parties to make a contemporaneous objection to afford the trial court an opportunity to rule upon issues and correct errors.

Ordinarily, trial courts should have an *345 opportunity to rule upon issues and correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.

Additionally, when examining the danger of unfair prejudice where the witness is not the *201 defendant, “the court may consider whether the jury will develop a bias against the witness because of the Rule 608(b) evidence,” and “whether the jury will give the evidence too much weight.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 413 (2007).

“The preservation requirement recognizes that ordinarily, trial courts should have an opportunity to rule upon issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417 (2007).

“[Ojrdinarily, trial courts should have an opportunity to rule upon issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 417 (2007).

The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

Generally, we do not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.

Moreover, in assessing the danger of unfair prejudice where the witness in question is not the defendant, “the court may consider whether the jury will develop a bias against the witness because of the Rule 608(b) evidence, [and] whether the jury will give the evidence too much weight.” State v. Brum, 155 N.H. 408, 413 (2007).