Cited by

was the sole circumstance constituting the cruelty or depravity that the defendant manifested while inflicting the injury.” Indeed, we have consistently held that, when determining whether a defendant “manifested exceptional cruelty and depravity” when inflicting death or serious bodily injury on a victim, the fact finder may look to the “circumstances surrounding the assault.” State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 213 (1979); see also State v. Woodard, 121 N.H. 970, 973 (1981) (holding that the tria

For instance, in State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207 (1979), the trial court did just that.

See, e.g., State v. Enderson, 148 N.H. 252, 254-55 (2002); State v. Steed, 140 N.H. 153, 158-59 (1995); State v. Rau, 129 N.H. 126, 128 (1987); State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 213 (1979); State v. Ferbert, 113 N.H. 235, 236-38 (1973).

The defendant’s right may, however, be restricted when it conflicts with a witness’s right against self-incrimination.

State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979) (discussing that trial court must balance defendant’s right to produce all favorable evidence and the witness’s privilege); Wansong v. Wansong, 478 N.E.2d 1270, 1272 (Mass.) (discussing that trier of fact must weigh potential prejudice to other litigants and potential harm to the party

The defendant relies on State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 212-13, 400 A.2d 480, 483-84 (1979), to support a contrary holding.

Because the defendant elected to testify, his credibility could be impeached in the same manner as any other witness.

denied, 439 U.S. 1005 (1978); United States v. Johnson, 488 F.2d 1206, 1210 (1st Cir. 1973) (noting that testimony before grand jury or other “preliminary and separate proceeding” does not waive right to assert privilege at trial) (quotation omitted); 1 McCormick on Evidence, supra § 140, at 528; cf. State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979) (finding that witness could assert privilege to avoid testifying at trial on matters she addressed during probable cause hearing, despi

The burden is upon the defendant in matters such as these to meet the two elements of the test set forth in State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979).

State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979); see Hoffman supra.

Therefore, to the extent that the defendant relies on our holdings in State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210-11, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979) and State v. Richards, 129 N.H. 669, 531 A.2d 338 (1987), that reliance is misplaced.

Instead, it must be weighed against the defendant’s right finder part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution “‘to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself.’” State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 210, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979).

Finally, she refused to answer the question: “Was Guy Wheeler a member of your household in April of 1984?” It is clear to us, from a thorough review of the record, that the trial court carefully considered the circumstances of the witness, questioned her legal counsel concerning the matters about which she was asked to testify, and determined that her answers might possibly incriminate her.

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.

The trial court’s application of the provisions of RSA 651:6 to LaVallee was considered and upheld by this court on his direct appeal of his conviction.

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. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 211, 400 A.2d 480, 482 (1979); State v. Pelillo, 117 N.H. 674, 675, 377 A.2d 615, 616 (1977).

This court has held that multiple wounds caused by the defendant’s hitting a victim with a hammer are sufficient to justify an extended sentence, State v. Morehouse, 120 N.H. 738, 741, 744, 424 A.2d 798, 799, 801 (1980), and that multiple stab wounds are sufficient for the imposition of an enhanced sentence.

Before the close of the evidence, the court ruled that evidence of the prior assault convictions would be admissible to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit assault if he took the stand.

See, e.g., State v. Lavallee, 119 N.H. 207, 213, 400 A.2d 480, 484 (1979); State v. Colby, 116 N.H. 790, 796, 368 A.2d 587, 592 (1976).

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.