Cited by

“We have distinguished between ‘extrinsic’ evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, which is governed by Rule 404(b), and ‘intrinsic’ evidence, which is not.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 598 (2016).

[¶14] Rule 404(b) applies only to extrinsic evidence, i.e., evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.

Here, although intent was not conceded, intent was not in serious dispute such that additional evidence was required because 5 State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 602-03 (2016) (when balancing the prejudice and probative value of the evidence, one factor we consider is the extent to which the issue upon which the evidence is offered is established by other evidence).

As noted above, the challenged evidence was highly probative of the defendant’s purposeful mens rea — which was actually in dispute and could not be established as readily by other evidence that the trial court anticipated being presented at trial.

The purpose of Rule 404(b) “is to ensure that an accused is tried on the merits of the crime charged and to prevent a conviction that is based upon propensity and character inferences drawn from evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 599 (2016) (quotation omitted).

We accord considerable deference to the trial court’s determination in balancing prejudicial impact and probative worth.

The purpose of Rule 404(b) “is to ensure that an accused is tried on the merits of the crime charged and to prevent a conviction that is based upon propensity and character inferences drawn from evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 599 (2016) (quotation omitted).

To find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

To find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

To satisfy the first prong, “the State is required to specify the purpose for which the evidence is offered and articulate the precise chain of reasoning by which the proffered evidence will tend to prove or disprove an issue actually in 6 dispute, without relying upon forbidden inferences of predisposition, character, or propensity.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 599 (2016) (quotation omitted).

To establish that the alleged error in this case affected the defendant’s substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that it was prejudicial, that is, that it affected the outcome of the proceeding.

For purposes of determining the mens rea for an offense, “intentionally” is synonymous with “purposely.” See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 601 (2016).

The trial court found that evidence of the Nottingham incidents was relevant to the defendant’s mental state and whether he acted knowingly.

Because persons rarely explain to others the inner workings of their minds or mental processes, one’s culpable mental state is 3 usually proved by circumstantial evidence.

“For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 604 (2016) (quotation omitted).

Indeed, “[w]e have never held that a trial court must sua sponte strike or issue a curative instruction with respect to witness testimony.” State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146, 161 (2013); accord State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 604 (2016).

Because people rarely explain to others the inner workings of their minds or mental processes, a culpable mental state must, in most cases, be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the fact finder may draw reasonable inferences on the issue of intent from an accused’s conduct.

“For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 604 (2016) (quotation omitted).

Before admitting evidence under Rule 404(b), a trial court must first determine that: (1) the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition; (2) there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior act; and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

Ct. R. 16- A. For us to find plain error: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 168 N.H. 589, 599 (2016) (setting forth three-pronged test applicable to evidence proffered pursuant to Rule 404(b)).