Cited by

[¶12] We review questions of law, including the interpretation of statutory privileges and rules of evidence, de novo.

“It is well settled that statutory privileges should be strictly construed.” State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 212 (2013).

[¶13] It is well settled that statutory privileges should be strictly construed.

“We accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence in the record,” id., or are legally erroneous, State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 211 (2013).

Trial courts have broad latitude when ruling on the admissibility of potentially unfairly prejudicial evidence; we will affirm those decisions absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

However, because the State did not raise this argument in the trial court, it is not preserved, and we decline to address it.

at 8); State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 220 (2013) (distinguishing questions concerning whether another witness is lying, which are improper, from questions concerning whether the other witness has a motive to lie, which are proper and carry a minimal risk of undue prejudice).

The defendant concedes that “it was permissible for the prosecutor to ask him about his statements during the interrogation.” As we have explained, “a recorded interview does not implicate the same concerns that underlie our prohibition against witness testimony at trial that opines upon the credibility of other witnesses.” State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 218-19 (2013).

State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 225 (2013) (concluding that trial court’s “prompt and thorough instructions” to jury that it was not to consider statements for their truth cured any possible danger of unfair prejudice from their admission).

Compare State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 220 (2013) (concluding that risk of undue prejudice from questions regarding witness’s motive to lie was minimal because, “unlike an improper appeal to emotion, the inquiry into a witness’s bias provides important and legitimate information for the fact finder to consider”), with State v. Jenot, 158 N.H. 181, 186-87

We defer to the trial court’s factual findings as long as they are supported by the evidence and are not erroneous as a matter of law, and we review questions of law de novo.

We note that the trial court instructed the jury to “scrutinize” Hebert’s testimony “with great care and caution.” See State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 225 (2013) (“Juries are presumed to follow instructions.”).

iting instruction from the court that such statements “are not being offered for the truth but to put into context the Defendant’s statements that are made throughout the interview.” We have recognized that in some circumstances, an officer’s statements in a police interview “provide necessary context without which the jury cannot appreciate the meaning of the suspect’s answers.” State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 218 (2013).

“Juries are presumed to follow instructions.” State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 225 (2013) (quotation omitted).

State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 223 (2013) (describing potentially prejudicial statements during an interview that provided context to defendant’s evasive answers as “probative”).