Cited by

“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 base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 796 (2012) (quotation omitted).

“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 base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 796 (2012) (quotation omitted).

“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 base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 796 (2012) (quotation omitted).

e name, she responded: “Absolutely.” She also confirmed that she could consider the facts presented in the defendant’s case and not base the verdict “for or against anyone.” When a trial court on voir dire has determined that a juror is free from prejudice, it is our duty on appeal to evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empaneled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.

“Once the trial court on voir dire has made a determination as to whether a prospective juror is free from prejudice, it is then our duty on appeal to evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empanelled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 794 (2012) (citation omitted).

The defendant draws our attention to State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790 (2012), which involved a challenge to a juror, who had been the victim of a sexual assault, as to whether she was qualified to sit on a case involving an 3 aggravated felonious sexual assault charge.

“The purpose underlying our preservation rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012).

Generally, a juror is presumed to be impartial.

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015); State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012).

State v. Mouser, 168 N.H. 19, 27 (2015); State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012); cf. Berliner, 150 N.H. at 84-85 (holding defendant did not preserve jury instruction issue because counsel never made a formal objection).

As the defendant rightly observes, “[t]he purpose underlying our preservation rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 792 (2012).

Rather, unfair prejudice must have “an undue tendency to induce a decision against the defendant on some improper basis, commonly one that is emotionally charged.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 796 (2012) (quotation omitted).

Part I, Article 35 of the State Constitution provides, “It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.” “This provision for judicial impartiality is applicable as well to jurors.” State v. Town, 163 N.H. 790, 793 (2012).

The purpose underlying our preservation rule is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made before those issues are presented for appellate review.

Whether evidence is relevant is a question for the trial court’s sound discretion, and we will not overturn its determination absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.