Cited by

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 297 (1967) (“prior convictions have an inherent prejudicial effect and are admitted to impeach the [criminal] defendant’s credibility only because the possibility of prejudice resulting from their introduction in evidence is thought to be outweighed by the legitimate purpose served by it”), cert, denied, 390 U.S. 102

Lack of trustworthiness may be evinced by his abiding and repeated contempt for laws which he is legally and morally bound to obey.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 296 (1967), cert.

Although a defendant’s prior convictions may be admissible under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 609, we have stated that *102 “care must be taken by the Trial Court that the cross-examination relating to prior convictions is not conducted in such a manner as to cause undue prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 116 (1967), cert.

The purpose of Rule 404(b) is to increase the probability of a just verdict.

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 116 (1967) (decided before the 1985 adoption of the rules of evidence, but based upon a similar common law rule and former RSA 516:33), cert.

We have held that a trial court must provide limiting instructions when prior convictions are introduced to impeach the credibility of a defendant.

See, e.g., State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15 (1967), cert.

This court has repeatedly held that prior convictions are admissible to impeach a defendant even if the crimes do not directly involve a lack of veracity.

care must be taken by the Trial Court that the cross-examination relating to prior convictions is not conducted in such a manner as to cause undue prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 116 (1967), cert.

Prior convictions may, however, be offered to prove an element of a crime or a system of criminal activity, or to show identity, malice or motive.

It “was not offered under any recognized exception to the general rule of inadmissibility.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1304 (1983); see State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114, cert.

The law is well established in this State that evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal offenses is inadmissible in a criminal trial “either to establish guilt or to show that a defendant would be likely to commit the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114, cert.

State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 211, 400 A.2d 480, 483 (1979); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), cert.

State v. Staples, 120 N.H. 278, 283, 415 A.2d 320, 323 (1980); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-97, 235 A.2d 111, 115-16 (1967), cert.

id., 415 A.2d at 323; State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 116 (1967), cert.

State v. Staples, 120 N.H. 278, 283, 415 A.2d 320, 323 (1980); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 295, 297, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15, 116 (1967), cert.

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 295, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15 (1967) (quoting Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 560-61 (1967)), cert.

We need not decide whether this evidence caused the defendant undue prejudice, see State v. Mann, 112 N.H. 412, 414-15, 297 A.2d 664, 666 (1972) and State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), because we find that trial counsel’s failure to take notes, to record the rulings made in the chambers conference, or to otherwise protect the record, is in itself evidence of ineffective representation.

The jury “should be informed of what kind of person is asking them to take his word.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 296, 235 A.2d 111, 115 (1967), cert.

The court ruled the conviction admissible but acknowledged that a limiting instruction would have to be given both at the time of admission and also in the final instructions.

State v. Wayne Kelley supra; State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 296, 235 A.2d 111, 115 (1967), cert.

State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 400 A.2d 480 (1979); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967), cert.

or when the defendant has testified and the State seeks to impeach his credibility.’ ’’State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 483 (1979), quoting State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114, cert.

In this State, it is well established that evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions is inadmissible “either to establish guilt or to show that a defendant would be likely to commit the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114, cert.

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967); cf. State v. Desilets, 96 N.H. 245, 73 A.2d 800 (1950).

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 293, 235 A.2d 111, 114 (1967); State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 379 A.2d 813 (1977).

The trier of fact can choose to disbelieve exculpatory testimony given by a defendant.

*546 It is well settled that evidence of prior offenses, while inadmissible to show defendant’s bad character, disposition or propensity to commit the crime for which he is indicted, see State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 235 A.2d 111 (1967); State v. Rumney, 109 N.H. 544, 258 A.2d 349 (1969), is admissible for the limited purposes specified by the trial judge herein.

We hold that the court’s action in this respect properly instructed the jury that these statements were to be used solely to evaluate the credibility of defendant’s son and wife as witnesses and were not to be considered as proof of the guilt of the defendant himself.

Although there is always a risk of some prejudice inherent in the admission of evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes (see State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294-95, 235 A.2d 111, 116 (1967)), it is well established that where the motive for the crime charged is the concealment of a prior crime, *799 evidence of the prior crime is admissible for the limited purpose of showing motive.

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 235 A.2d 111 (1967); State v. Blake, 113 N.H. 115, 305 A.2d 300 (1973); see United States v. Belt, 514 F.2d 837, 849 (D.C.

The defendant analogizes this situation to the prejudicial introduction into evidence of prior convictions of crimes to establish guilt or to show that a defendant would be likely to commit the crime for which he is being tried.

We also reject the claim that defendant’s alibi evidence would not permit a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt since the jury could believe or disbelieve the alibi evidence.

State v. Desilets, 96 N.H. 245, 247, 73 A.2d 800, 802 (1950); State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 235 A.2d 111 (1967).

We recently analyzed and upheld such use of a defendant’s prior convictions more remote in time than any of the convictions mentioned in this case.

If these questions are permitted the trial court must immediately and in his final instructions warn the jury that prior convictions are to be used only to evaluate defendant’s credibility as a witness and not as proof of his guilt of the offense being tried.

State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 295-96, 235 A.2d 111, 114-15 (1967); State v. Duke, 100 N.H. 292, 123 A.2d 745 (1956).