Cited by

On appeal, the defendant contends that defense counsel did not “open the door” by creating a misleading impression regarding the interview; and even if she did, the admission of the entire tape was an “unfairly prejudicial remedy.” “Opening the door” is a conclusory term.

Therefore, the issue before us is whether the trial judge properly ruled that the defendant “opened the door.” The “opening the door” doctrine applies when one party introduces evidence that provides a justification beyond mere relevance for an opponent’s introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.

Under this doctrine “a party has the right to introduce the remainder of the writing, statement, correspondence, former testimony, or conversation so far as it relates to the same subject matter and hence tends to explain or shed light on the meaning of the part already received.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984) (quotation omitted).

Under the doctrine of verbal completeness, “a party has the right to introduce the remainder of [a] writing, statement, correspondence, former testimony, or conversation [that his or her opponent introduced] so far as it relates to the same subject matter and hence tends to explain or shed light on the meaning of the part already received.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984) (quotation omitted).

State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 530-31, 484 A.2d 1095, 1097-98 (1984) (introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence justified when opposing party creates misleading advantage).

1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 106[2], at 106-17 (1992); cf State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984) (noting that rule of verbal completeness permits parties to introduce remainder of statement so far as it relates to same subject matter and is not prejudicial).

The term “opening-the-door” is used to describe situations in which a misleading advantage gained by the opposing party “may be countered with previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984).

The defendant’s own testimony thereby opened the door to otherwise impermissible impeachment, see State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 530-31, 484 A.2d 1095, 1097-98 (1984), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s misdemeanor convictions.

The term “opening-the-door” is used to describe situations in which a misleading advantage gained by the opposing party may be countered with previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence.

The term “opening-the-door” is used “‘broadly to describe situations in which a misleading advantage may be countered with previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence.’” Benoit, supra at 21, 490 A.2d at 305 (quoting State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984)).

He also contends that LaBranche articulated a rule, reaffirmed in State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 484 A.2d 1095 (1984), that a mistrial is required whenever evidence of another similar offense, specifically excluded by a pretrial order, comes in at trial.

The door is opened when a misleading advantage is created, justifying the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.

Opening the door occurs “when one party introduces evidence that provides a justification beyond mere relevance for an opponent’s introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 530, 484 A.2d 1095, 1097 (1984).

The trial court soundly rejected such a reading of the rule and held in effect that the defendant’s answer to his own counsel’s question had opened the door to otherwise impermissible impeachment.

The State argues that it legitimately sought to counter this misleading advantage by eliciting otherwise inadmissible evidence, and that the defendant opened the door for testimony concerning the bail condition.

“[T]he circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences from it viewed in the light most favorable to the State excluded all rational conclusions except guilt.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 532, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984).

New Hampshire courts, however, have expanded the meaning of the phrase “opening the door.” “In practice today, the same term is often used more broadly to describe situations in which a misleading advantage may be countered with previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence.” State v. Crosman, 125 N.H. 527, 531, 484 A.2d 1095, 1098 (1984).