Cited by

In order to introduce subsequent bad acts pursuant to Rule 404(b), the State must meet its burden of demonstrating the relevance of the evidence.

As we explained above, the defendant failed to timely challenge the 5 Accordingly, we review the jury instructions for plain error.

“To find plain error: (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 judicial proceedings.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009) (quotation omitted).

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).

State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 493 (2009); see also Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC, 171 N.H. 158, 171 (2018).

State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 490-92, 986 A.2d 515 (2009) (noting State's concession that first two prongs were met, assuming without deciding that third prong was met, and concluding that fourth prong was not satisfied); see also State v. Page, 171 N.H. ----, ----, 206 A.3d 936, 2019 WL 1246444 (2019) (slip op.

State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 490-92 (2009) (noting State’s concession that first two prongs were met, assuming without deciding that third prong was met, and concluding that fourth prong was not satisfied); see also State v. Page, 171 N.H. ___, ___ (decided March 19, 2019) (slip op.

State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 490-92 (2009) (noting State’s concession that first two prongs were met, assuming without deciding that third prong was met, and concluding that fourth prong was not satisfied).

State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 485 (2009) (concluding subsequent bad act evidence of defendant’s threats against witness was relevant to witness’s motive to lie); see also Legere, 157 N.H. at 761 (“Evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness.” (quotation and ellips

Because the defendant appeals only the court’s pretrial ruling on the admissibility of Linscott’s testimony regarding her abuse by the defendant, and because the defendant has not demonstrated that he renewed his objection after Linscott testified at trial, “we consider only what was presented at the pretrial hearing.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 483 (2009) (quotation omitted); cf. State v. Smalley, 151 N.H. 193, 196 (2004) (trial evidence reviewed on appeal because defendant renewed his Rul

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.

Under the fourth prong, we must determine whether the trial court’s error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

In State v. Russell, we declined to exercise our discretion under the fourth prong of the plain error rule because there was “overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence” of the defendant’s guilt.

We assume, without deciding, that the first three prongs of the plain error test are met.

evidence would have a great emotional impact upon a jury” or great “potential for appealing to a juror’s sense of resentment or outrage”; “the extent to which the issue upon which it is offered is established by other evidence, stipulation, or inference”; and “whether the evidence is relevant to prove an issue that is actually in serious dispute.” Smalley, 151 N.H. at 198; see State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 485 (2009); Costello, 159 N.H. at 123; Lesnick, 141 N.H. at 127.

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.

Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.

“Under the fourth prong, we must decide whether the trial court’s error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 491 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, or provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision upon something other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 485 (2009).

The plain error rule allows us to consider errors not raised before the trial court.

“However, the rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“However, the rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009).

For a claim to be successfully raised as plain error: “(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 judicial proceedings.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009) (quotation omitted).

“However, the rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009).

[t]he person shall be given a minimum mandatory sentence of not less than 3 years’ imprisonment for a first offense.” We have held that this enhancement does not apply “absent a specific finding by the jury that an element of the felony for which it convicted the defendant was possession, use or attempted use of a firearm.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 490 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Indeed, the exception appears to be similar, if not identical, to the third and fourth prongs of plain error review, which require us to consider whether the error at issue “affect[s] substantial rights” and “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 489 (2009); see Hopkins, 310 F.3d at 151 (suggesting that invited error doctrine does not apply where error “taint[s] the integrity of the judicial process”); Green, 27

We review the trial court’s ruling for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, and will reverse only if it was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.