Cited by

Under the third prong, we determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

We next address whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

overnight it’s just floatin’ out there you know anybody could see what you’re doing so when you showed up today I was thinking you know that’s probably it.” [¶27] In State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 376-77 (2009), we explained that evidence that a defendant seeks out and views child pornography on a regular basis is relevant to show that the defendant acted knowingly.

State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 378 (2009) (concluding disputed evidence not inflammatory when the jury had already been exposed to similar conduct by nature of the offense).

jury when she failed to provide him with proper nutrition); see also Addison (Capital Murder), 165 N.H. at 466-67 (upholding admission of other bad act evidence because it was “highly probative” of the State’s theory that, when the defendant shot a police officer, he “was aware that his actions would cause the death of a law enforcement officer who was acting in the line of duty”); State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 376-77 (2009) (holding that evidence that the defendant sought out websites containing

In this case, the prior-act evidence would not have had a greater emotional impact upon the jury than the evidence of the charged act because the acts were “extraordinarily similar.” See State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 378 (2009) (stating prior act evidence not likely to have greater emotional impact on jury because similar to charged acts).

This rule requires “the custodian of the record, or another qualified witness, to testify about the identity and mode of preparation of the proffered document, and to testify that it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the transaction recorded.” State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 374 (2009) (quotation omitted).

8 To meet its burden under the first prong, “the State is required to specify the purpose for which the evidence is offered and articulate the precise chain of reasoning by which the proffered evidence will tend to prove or disprove an issue actually in dispute, without relying upon forbidden inferences of predisposition, character, or propensity.” State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 376 (2009) (quotation omitted).

However, such evidence was not likely to have any greater impact upon the jury than the charged acts.

Noting that a foundation.for fingerprint cards is often laid using the business records exception, see State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 373 (2009), he contends that the State failed to lay such a foundation here.

Among the factors we consider in weighing the evidence are: (1) whether the evidence would have a great emotional impact upon a jury; (2) its potential for *575 appealing to a juror’s sense of resentment or outrage; and (3) the extent to which the issue upon which it is offered is established by other evidence, stipulation or inference.

Among the factors we consider in weighing the evidence are: (1) whether the evidence would have a great emotional impact upon a jury; (2) its potential for appealing to a *502 juror’s sense of resentment or outrage; and (3) the extent to which the issue upon which it is offered is established by other evidence, stipulation or inference.

To be admissible 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 the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.