Cited by

Pierce, 176 N.H. at ___,; State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 361 (1999) (holding that a mistrial was warranted after a witness testified that the defendant had sexually assaulted another individual); State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (holding that a mistrial was warranted when the testimony “explicitly revealed to the jury inadmissible evidence of an identical charge which had been previously filed against the defendant”); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179 (1978) (holding that testimon

at 361 (holding that “statement that ‘that man raped some girl’ was highly prejudicial and warranted a mistrial”); State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (holding that a mistrial was warranted where the testimony “explicitly revealed to the jury inadmissible evidence of an identical charge which had been previously filed against the defendant”); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179 4 (1978) (holding that testimony

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 222 (1983) 7 (finding no harmless error where inadmissible statements were admitted and the other evidence in the case was circumstantial).

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 9 221 (1983) (“[W]e must also consider the State’s argument that the admission of his testimony, in light of all the existing circumstances, constituted harmless error.”); cf. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986) (“Whether such an error is harmless in a particul

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 219, 221 (1983) (detective’s testimony regarding identical charge that had been previously filed against defendant required mistrial).

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (detective’s testimony regarding identical charge which had’ previously been filed against the defendant required a mistrial).

at 360 (quoting State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (citations and quotation omitted)).

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (granting a motion for mistrial due to police testimony that the defendant had been previously charged with a crime that was identical to the one for which he stood trial); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 178-79 (1978) (granting a motion for mistrial due to testimony from two witnesses that the defendant

In State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218 (1983), we held that a mistrial was required in a robbery case after a police officer testified to the defendant’s statement: “I don’t know why you’re charging me with armed robbery.

was impaired.” While juries are presumed to follow instructions, State v. Stayman, 138 N.H. 397, 403, 640 A.2d 771, 775 (1994), in some cases, due to the odious nature of the evidence, “cautionary or limiting instructions would not have been able to erase the taint of the prejudicial evidence,” State v. Carter, 140 N.H. 1, 5, 662 A.2d 289, 291 (1995) (quotation omitted); see State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983).

The infusion of such evidence into a trial is probably only equalled by a confession in its prejudicial impact upon a jury.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (citations and quotation omitted).

Given the nature and extent of the defendant’s prior sexual misconduct, however, “cautionary or limiting instructions would not have been able to erase the taint of the prejudicial evidence.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (quotation omitted).

Trempe’s conviction cannot be used to justify the ruling because the jury’s verdict may have been affected by the admission of the simple assault conviction.

Given the odious and provocative nature of the defendant’s prior sexual mistreatment of his stepdaughter, “cautionary or limiting instructions would not have been able to erase the taint of the prejudicial evidence,” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (quotation omitted); cf. McGlew, 139 N.H. at 510, 658 A.2d at 1195 (unfair *6 prejudice results if effect of evidence “is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or

In addition, evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal conviction at trial “is probably only equalled by a confession in its prejudicial impact upon a juiy.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 469 A.2d 1302 (1983); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 385 A.2d 108 (1978).

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221-22, 469 A.2d 1302, 1304-05 (1983) (mistrial required when jury exposed to inadmissible evidence of an identical charge previously filed against the defendant); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179, 385 A.2d 108, 110 (1978) (mistrial required when jury exposed to inadmissible testimony concerning a pending, unt

Ellison, 135 N.H. at 4, 599 A.2d at 479 (prejudice inherent in evidence of other similar crimes); State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 220, 469 A.2d 1302, 1304-05 (1983) (testimony explicitly revealed evidence of identical crime); State v. LaBranch, 118 N.H. 176, 179, 385 A.2d 108, 110 (1978) (evidence of closely related charge); cf. Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C.Cir.

CONDUCT 3.4(e), and where a witness alluded to criminal conduct of the defendant similar to the conduct charged, see State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (curative instructions held insuf *17 fieient); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179, 385 A.2d 108, 110 (1978) (curative instructions, had they been given, would have been insufficient).

Thus, we cannot say “beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible evidence did not affect the verdict.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1305 (1983) (quotation omitted).

The defendant argues that the prosecutor’s question to Rodden on cross-examination is comparable to the introduction of inadmissible evidence in State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 469 A.2d 1302 (1983), and State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 385 A.2d 108 (1978), which required us to hold that a mistrial was the only appropriate remedy.

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 220, 469 A.2d 1302, 1304 (1983); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 178, 385 A.2d 108, 109 (1978).

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, this testimony hardly rises to the level of evidence of prior bad acts.

State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 469 A.2d 1302 (1983); see also State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 385 A.2d 108 (1978).

*184 Assuming arguendo that the evidence about which the defendant complains was inadmissible and that he was in some measure prejudiced, based upon our review of all the evidence and the limiting instructions given by the trial judge, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence, and any possible prejudice resulting therefrom, did not affect the verdict.

It “was not offered under any recognized exception to the general rule of inadmissibility.” State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221, 469 A.2d 1302, 1304 (1983); see State v. Cote, 108 N.H. 290, 294, 235 A.2d 111, 114, cert.

When evidence concerning past criminal convictions or indictments is introduced to establish guilt or show a propensity to commit a crime, curative instructions will not erase the prejudice to the defendant.