Cited by

The State bore the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of the prior bad act evidence.

In State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379 (2009), we considered an indictment alleging that the defendant did knowingly engage in a pattern of sexual assault on the victim, a child under the age of 16, by committing more than one act of AFSA or felonious sexual assault or both over a period of two months or more and within a period of five years.

Because the defendant chose to present a case after unsuccessfully moving to dismiss, we review the entire trial record to make the requisite determination.

The State bears the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of prior bad acts.

We review a trial court’s admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

Accordingly, we agree with the State that the constitutional issues are not preserved.

Rubenzer never referred to “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “liberty interest” or any other phrase that might have alerted the trial court that he claimed a constitutional right to intervene.

her hands,” she was “rolling around, kicking at us,” and “screaming at the top of her lungs.” The defendant denied trying to kick the officer and argues that “[t]he alleged ‘kicking’ was not interference or aggression, but a reaction to disorientation, pain, and fear.” The credibility of the witnesses and the proper weight to be given to their testimony were issues for the jury to resolve.

Later in the victim’s direct examination she was asked the same question, and she testified, “I do not remember.” However, the victim’s credibility and the proper weight to be given to her testimony were issues for the jury to resolve.

“Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution requires that an indictment describe the offense with sufficient specificity to ensure that the defendant can prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy.” State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 384 (2009).

State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 389 (2009); Smalley, 151 N.H. at 199; McGlew, 139 N.H. at 510-11.

The State responds that the defendant failed to preserve this argument because he did not file a motion to reconsider asking the court to apply the correct legal standard, see New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676 (2002), or make a specific contemporaneous objection during the hearing on the motion to set aside the verdicts, see State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 386 (2009); SUPER.

Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution requires that an indictment describe the offense with sufficient specificity to ensure that the defendant can prepare for trial and avoid double jeopardy.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must “prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 385 (2009).

We reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to issue a limiting instruction during Sanborn’s testimony; because he failed to request a limiting instruction, he cannot complain of error.

The defendant compares RSA chapter 173-B cases to criminal cases in which we have articulated that Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution requires an indictment to describe the offense with sufficient specificity to ensure that the defendant can prepare for trial.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review.

Therefore, because the defendant did not raise this argument in superior court, it is not properly before us now.

State v. Ericson, 159 N.H. 379, 386 (2009) (citations omitted).