Cited by

When intent is not conceded by the defense, and it is an element of the crime to be proven by the State, it is sufficiently at issue to require evidence at trial.

2 State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Compare State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (threat delivered two months before victim’s murder was not so remote in time as to eliminate the requisite nexus between it and the charged event), Pepin, 156 N.H. at 278 (threat made five months before charged event was sufficiently closely connected to charged event as to be admissible), and State v. All

Nightingale, 160 N.H. at 574, 8 A.3d 136; State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98, 12 A.3d 1277 (2010).

“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to 8 base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (quotation omitted).

“[I]n ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b), the trial court exercises its sound discretion, and we will find error *730 only if the defendant can show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 96 (2010) (quotation omitted).

State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010); Russell, 159 N.H. at 485; State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645, 650 (2002).

because such comments are such an integral part of the interrogation, several courts have noted that they provide a necessary context for the defendant’s responses.” Lanham, 171 S.W.3d at 27; see also State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 102-03 (2010) (finding police interview highly probative where “defendant’s demeanor visibly changed when the conversation turned to the murders” and defendant made a possibly false exculpatory statement).

“We have looked to the federal plain error analysis in applying our plain error rule.” State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 100 (2010).

State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (quotation omitted).

State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (quotation omitted).

toward [the victim]” because it went “directly to his motive to commit the two crimes charged” and the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence); see also State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 98 (2010) (holding that a “threat.

To satisfy this prong, the defendant must show that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.