Cited by

“The remarks or the conduct must be more than merely inadmissible; they must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 555, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988); see also State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 906, 395 A.2d 1244, 1246 (1978) (because of irreparable prejudice, and despite trial court curative instruction, defendant was granted mistrial after State introduced blood-stained bedspread without establishing proper foundation).

The remarks or the conduct must be more than merely inadmissible; they must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.

The burden of establishing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon the State.

The defendant claims that the admissibility of the jacket is controlled by our holding in State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 395 A.2d 1244 (1978); however, the facts of Scarlett are significantly different from those existing here.

The contents of the bag were neither exposed to the jury nor offered in evidence.

We do not believe that the assumed prosecutor’s error in this case rises to the same level of irreparable prejudice as was created, for example, by the display of an inadmissible blood-stained bedspread to a jury in State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 395 A.2d 1244 (1978) (in which this court overturned the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for mistrial).

Consequently, we hold a prosecutor to a high standard of conduct and integrity.

Under these circumstances, “cautionary or limiting instructions would not have been able to erase the taint of the prejudicial evidence and would have served only to emphasize the prejudice.” State v. LaBranche, supra at 179-80, 385 A.2d at 110; State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H 904, 906, 395 A.2d 1244, 1246 (1978).

Nor do we agree that the identification of Mrs. George was, as the defendant contends, the functional equivalent of displaying to the jury an apparently bloodstained bedspread which could not have been admitted into evidence, as in State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 905-07, 395 A.2d 1244, 1245-46 (1968).

The burden of establishing that error in a criminal proceeding is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the State.

State v. Staples, 121 N.H. 959, 962, 437 A.2d 266, 267 (1981); State v. Welch, 120 N.H. 687, 688, 421 A.2d 142, 142-43 (1980); State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 906, 907, 395 A.2d 1244, 1246, 1247 (1978); see also State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 72, 442 A.2d 578, 583 (1982).

Because the State laid an adequate foundation for the admission of the boots and the blood, the trial court properly admitted them as evidence.

This court has often addressed complaints by criminal defendants of prosecutorial misconduct, although the alleged misconduct usually has not required us to reverse the convictions.

In the first appeal we remanded the case to the superior court for a new trial.

State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 907, 395 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (1978); State v. Ruelke, 116 N.H. 692, 694, 366 A.2d 497, 498 (1976).

While this was not an error caused by the prosecutor, the failure of the judge to declare a mistrial cannot fairly be sustained.