Cited by

Id.-, see also State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504 (1982).

The purpose of an indictment is to notify the defendant of the charges he must be prepared to meet at trial and to protect him from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

Cofske, 129 N.H. at 135, 523 *200 A.2d at 103-04; State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 502, 446 A.2d 1162, 1164 (1982).

In cases where such evidence is relevant, it is admissible only where the trial court determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect on the victim, which determination we will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion.

v. Pond, 133 N.H. 738, 740, 584 A.2d 770, 771 (1990) (after not pros of “knowingly” indictment, grand jury “corrected] the mens rea to ‘purposely’”); State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 61, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986) (defendant “was charged with acting purposely”); State v. Smith, 127 N.H. 433, 436, 503 A.2d 774, 776 (1985) (defendant “must have purposely engaged in sexual penetration”); State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1982) (indictment charged defendant did “‘purposely engage in s

nd has not done.” The indictment and the bill of particulars in the present case so adequately described the means by which Stearns committed the crime, that it met the sufficiency standard by giving “the defendant enough information about the nature and cause of the accusation *489 [so as] to allow the defendant to prepare for trial.” Stiles, supra at 683, 465 A.2d at 910 (citing State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165-66 (1982)).

State v. Goulet, 129 N.H. 348, 351, 529 A.2d 879, 881 (1987) (evidence of sexual promiscuity not necessarily admissible in spite of shield law); State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 446 A.2d 1162 (1982) (evidence of mere predilection for promiscuity too remote).

The trial court’s ruling was within its sound discretion, State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 503, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1982), and was therefore proper.

*135 In State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1164 (1982), this court noted that a transcript of a prior proceeding can be “extremely valuable” to a criminal defendant in cases where it might be used to impeach prosecution testimony.

While these objectives require that a complaint clearly set out all elements of the offense, see State v. Bussiere, 118 N.H. 659, 661, 392 A.2d 151, 153 (1978), an element need not be stated in precise statutory language, if the complaint as a whole may fairly be understood to charge it.

Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971); State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 115, 498 A.2d 330, 332 (1985); State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 501-02, 446 A.2d 1162, 1164 (1982).

The first issue raised by the defendant is not properly before us. “To preserve issues for our consideration, counsel must take contemporaneous objections and exceptions.” State v. Shute, 122 N.H. *212 498, 505, 446 A.2d 1162, 1166 (1982).

Because we remand for a new trial, and because some of the additional issues are likely to be raised in the second trial, in the interest of judicial economy, we address the defendant’s additional arguments.

State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1166 (1982) (indictment must include all the elements constituting the offense).

An indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it gives the defendant enough information about the nature and cause of the *25 accusation to prepare for trial.

As a general rule, we will not consider claims of error in excluding evidence unless supported by prompt exception under circumstances that indicate the reason for the error claimed.

arms, did purposely exercise unauthorized control over $2,500.00 in United States currency, the property of Frances George with a purpose to deprive her thereof without authority of said Frances George to do so....” An indictment is constitutionally sufficient if it gives the defendant enough information about the nature and cause of the accusation to allow the defendant to prepare for trial.

State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 505-06, 446 A.2d 1162, 1166-67 (1982) (finding of no “extraordinary circumstances” justifying award in excess of $300 for compensation of expert witness upheld on appeal).

State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165-66 (1982); State v. Taylor, 121 N.H. 489, 495, 431 A.2d 775, 778 (1981); State v. Bussiere, 118 N.H. 659, 661, 392 A.2d 151, 153 (1978).

We have recently reaffirmed our holdings “that evidence of a prosecutrix’ prior sexual activity could be relevant and admissible in certain limited circumstances.” State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 503, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1982) (emphasis in original); see State v. LaClair, 121 N.H. at 745, 433 A.2d at 1328; State v. Howard, 121 N.H. at 58-59, 426 A.2d at 462.