Cited by

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007) (we will reverse a trial court for plain error if the error affected the outcome of the case).

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007) (“[A]n error is plain if it was or should have been ‘obvious’ in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the contrary.” (Quotation omitted)).

Id.; see also State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423- 24 (2007) (establishing “a broad prohibition on questions requiring a witness to comment upon the credibility of other witnesses”).

le 106 codifies New Hampshire’s common law doctrine of completeness, which provides that a party “has the right to introduce the remainder of a writing, statement, correspondence, former testimony or conversation that his or her opponent introduced so far as it relates to the same subject matter and hence tends to explain or shed light on the meaning of the part already received.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 421 (2007) (quotation omitted); see State v. Mitchell, 166 N.H. 288, 293 (2014).

State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583, 586, 590 (2009) (concluding that evidence of prior uncharged assaults in sexual assault prosecution was admissible after the defendant created a misleading advantage by testifying that he could “never” sexually assault his child); State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 422-23 (2007) (concluding that trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in excluding evidence that the defendant cried in one interview with the police to rebut testimony that he did not cry in anothe

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007) (concluding errors by prosecutor were not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence on the issue that was presented at trial).

State v. Souksamrane, 164 N.H. 425, 427-28 (2012); State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423-24 (2007).

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007) (quotations, citations, and ellipses omitted).

In State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423-24 (2007), we acknowledged a trend in our cases “toward limiting testimony or questioning that requires a witness to opine upon the credibility of other witnesses.” Lopez, 156 N.H. at 424.

As for the third prong of the plain error test, “to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i. e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007).

e doctrine of verbal completeness is a common law rule recognized by this court, whereby “a party has the right to introduce the remainder of a writing, statement, correspondence, former testimony or conversation that his or her opponent introduced so far as it relates to the same subject matter and hence tends to explain or shed light on the meaning of the part already received.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 421 (2007) (quotation omitted); see also N.H. R. Ev.

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 421 (2007) (quotation omitted).

“Generally, to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007).

We note that, in the trial context, we have adopted a “broad prohibition on questions requiring a witness to comment upon the credibility of other witnesses.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007) (rejecting a case-by-case approach in favor of a broad prohibition).

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted).

Our plain error rule requires: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

In State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416 (2007), we adopted a broad prohibition against *428 questions requiring a witness to comment on the credibility of other witnesses.

Second, he asserts that “the admission of this evidence violated the cardinal rule that a trial judge should not permit the prosecution to ask a witness to express an opinion about the credibility of another witness.” See State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423-24 (2007) (adopting a broad prohibition on questions requiring a witness to comment on credibility of other witnesses).

Generally, to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, ie., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.

We will not reverse the trial court’s decision to admit evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007) (“[T]o satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, ie., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.”).

Generally, to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, ie., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.

“[T]o satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007).

Thus, the third criterion is not satisfied.

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 425 (2007) (“[T]o satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.”).

The defendant next argues that, during the trial for the alleged assaults of C.P., the trial court erred in permitting the State to ask the defendant, during cross-examination, if the complainant was “lying.” See State v. *213 Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 423-24 (2007).

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007) (error is plain when it is clear under current law).

State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 426 (2007) (court refused to reverse conviction for plain error because defendant failed to show that error affected outcome of proceeding).

On the third criterion, to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that an error affected substantial rights, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.

We have recently stated that in the context of our plain error analysis, "plain" is synonymous with "clear" or, equivalently, "obvious."

We have recently stated that in the context of our plain error analysis, “plain” is synonymous with “clear” or, equivalently, “obvious.” State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 424 (2007).

We look to the federal courts’ application of the federal plain error rule to inform our application of the state rule.