Cited by

However, “the privilege against self-incrimination applies not only to answers which would support a conviction, but also to those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute someone who claims the privilege.” State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 212 (1985) (brackets and quotation omitted).

State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 213 (1985); see State v. Martineau, 116 N.H. 797, 798-99 (1976) (“[I]t is well established that where the motive for the crime charged is the concealment of a prior crime, evidence of the prior crime is admissible for the limited purpose of showing motive.”).

There, after we had previously affirmed the defendant’s first degree murder conviction, State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 209 (1985), the defendant *312 appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial and petition for habeas corpus.

See, e.g., State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 747, 622 A.2d 1225, 1236 (1993); State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 213, 490 A.2d 1350, 1354 (1985); State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984).

The trial testimony, more fully detailed in State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 490 A.2d 1350 (1985), indicates that the following facts could be found.

State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 212, 490 A.2d 1350, 1353 (1985); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).

State v. Parker, 127 N.H. 525, 532, 503 A.2d 809, 813 (1985); State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 213, 490 A.2d 1350, 1354 (1985); State v. Barker, 117 N.H. at 546, 374 A.2d at 1180.

In this instance, the trial court had no opportunity to correct the error presently alleged by the defendant; therefore, no question was preserved for review by this court.

State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 212, 490 A.2d 1350, 1353 (1985); see also State v. Elbert, 125 N.H. 1, 13, 480 A.2d 854, 861 (1984).

State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 490 A.2d 1350 (1985) (to preserve issues for consideration on appeal, counsel must make contemporaneous objections); N.H. R. Ev.

Evidence of a prior offense is inadmissible to show the disposition or character of the defendant, but is admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive or intent.

Evidence of past offenses is not admissible to show the defendant’s character or propensity for crime, but is admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, or intent.

The defendant, having failed to object on the basis of undue prejudice, neither gave the trial court the opportunity to correct the alleged error, State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 212, 490 A.2d 1350, 1353 (1985), nor established the record necessary for appeal.