Cited by

State v. Hood, 127 N.H. 478, 480, 503 A.2d 781, 783 (1985) (citations, quotation, and brackets omitted); see State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977).

nographic material owned by the defendant); State v. Gruber, 132 N.H. 83, 89, 562 A.2d 156, 159-60 (1989) (State introduced cancelled checks, receipts, and telephone records to prove that defendant had engaged in prior bad acts); Trainor, 130 N.H. at 374, 540 A.2d at 1238 (police officer “chronicled the events surrounding [a prior] indictment and linked the defendant to them”); State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 545-46, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977) (police officer testified that defendant had previous

Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible for limited relevant purposes other than to prove the “defendant’s bad character, disposition or propensity to commit the crime for which he is indicted.” State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977).

Prior to the adoption of Rule 404(b), this court had established a three-pronged test to determine the admissibility of prior offenses.

unity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Before allowing “bad acts” evidence to go before the jury, the trial court must preliminarily determine whether (1) the “‘evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant,”’ State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986) (quoting State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977)); (2) there is clear proof that the act at issue was co

tent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” We have before held that the trial court may admit evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” only upon a determination “that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition, that there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior offenses,” Trainor supra (citing State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977)), and that the “prejudice to the defendant does not su

We have noted that “[t]he decision to admit such evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court upon a determination that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition, that there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior offenses,” Trainor, 130 N.H. at 374, 540 A.2d at 1238 (citing State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977)), and that the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of t

The court ordered a pre-trial hearing pursuant to State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977) to determine if “the proof that the acts in question were committed by the defendant [was] clear, and [if] the probative value of the evidence outweigh[ed] the danger of prejudice.

In State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977), we held that evidence of prior offenses is admissible for a relevant purpose other than to show the “defendant’s bad character, disposition or propensity to commit the crime for which he is indicted.” Id.

In State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977), we said that before admitting evidence of other crimes: “The judge must determine that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant, that the proof that the acts in question were committed by the defendant is clear, and that the probati

State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 638, 484 A.2d 1158, 1159 (1984); State v. Smith, 125 N.H. 522, 525-26, 484 A.2d 1091, 1094 (1984); State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 545-46, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977).

Evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions is not admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief to prove the character of the accused or his disposition to commit the crime in question.

In State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977), we made it clear that in resolving the issue of admissibility: “The judge m,ust determine that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant, that the proof that the acts in question were committed by the defendant is clear, and that the

Before admitting a *739 prior conviction for these purposes, however, the trial judge must determine that the probative value of the conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect.

The trial judge, moreover, specifically instructed the jury that the evidence was to be considered only on that limited issue.

State v. Baker, 120 N.H. 773, 775, 424 A.2d 171, 172-73 (1980); see State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 1180 (1977).

generally ABA STANDARDS FOR TRIAL BY JURY § 4.4 (Approved Draft, 1968); cf. Novosel v. Helgemoe, 118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124 (1978) (trial bifurcation); State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977) (limiting instruction regarding evidence of prior offense).