Cited by

State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 607-08, 419 A.2d 1102 (1980); see also *1094 United States v. Pelletier, 666 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 2011) (when, through cross-examination of government witness, defense counsel created impression that defendant had legitimate sources of income and had nothing to do with delivery of marijuana, which just "mysterio

He admitted that the suggestion that the jurors were deliberating in their separate motel rooms on the night they were sequestered, or that they had even had alcoholic beverages that evening, was “pure speculation.” Unsupported speculation does not entitle a defendant to have the trial court interrogate the jurors about alleged impropriety in deliberations.

*469 ’’The speculation or surmise of defendant’s attorney, unsupported or uncorroborated either by sworn affidavit or statements of any party, that there was any impropriety, wrongdoing or violation of the oath of a juror affecting the verdict, does not require the trial court to examine or interrogate or interview the jurors after their verdict is revealed.” State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 607, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104-05 (1980).

State v. Pugliese, 122 N.H. 1141, 1147-48, 455 A.2d 1018, 1022 (1982); State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977).

The additional testimony concerning the prior statements by Bernier and Chamberlain was merely cumulative, and the trial court’s refusal to admit additional extrinsic evidence of those statements for impeachment was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Compare State v. Hersom, 84 N.H. 433, 152 A. 276 (1930) (questioner is bound by the witness’ answers regarding alleged prior illegal acts, and the trial court has no discretion to admit extrinsic evidence of such acts to impeach credibility) with State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 419 A.2d 1102 (1980) (decision to admit evidence on rebuttal concerning alleged prior illegal acts, for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility, is within the discretion of the trial court); see also Propose

“[T]he proper function and purpose of rebuttal testimony is to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party.” State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 607, 419 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1980) (quoting United States v. Chrzanowski, 502 F.2d 573, 576 (4th Cir. 1978)).

State v. Niquette, 122 N.H. at 873, 451 A.2d at 1294; State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 608, 419 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1980).

State v. Danskin, 122 N.H. 817, 819, 451 A.2d 396, 397-98 (1982); State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980).

State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606-07, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980); see also State v. Thresher, 122 N.H. 63, 74, 442 A.2d 578, 583-84 (1982).

At this point, the defendant moved for a mistrial claiming juror taint, but the trial court, after individually questioning the jurors who had been selected to sit on the case, subsequently excused one juror and denied the defendant’s motion.

Taylor v. Gagne, 121 N.H. 948, 949, 437 A.2d 262, 263 (1981); United States v. Chrzanowsky, 502 F.2d 573, 576 (3d Cir. 1974); see State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 607, 419 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1980).

We hold that the court’s actions, as a whole, provided the jury with an adequate definition of “recklessly.” Cf. State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 609, 419 A.2d 1102, 1106 (1980).

State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 609, 419 A.2d 1102, 1106 (1980); State v. Belkner, 117 N.H. 462, 471, 374 A.2d 938, 944 (1977) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973)).

We note, however, that no objection was taken to the court’s jury instructions and the matter is therefore not properly before us. State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 608, 419 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1980).

State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 606, 419 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1980); State v. Kenna, 117 N.H. 305, 309, 374 A.2d 427, 430 (1977); see Patten v. Newton, 102 N.H. 444, 447, 159 A.2d 809, 811 (1960).

State v. Jones, 120 N.H. 652, 653, 421 A.2d 1004, 1005 (1980) (per curiam); State v. Donovan, 120 N.H. 603, 608, 419 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1980); State v. Carroll, 120 N.H. 458, 461, 417 A.2d 8, 10 (1980).

We have repeatedly criticized such efforts.