Cited by

State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 116 (1985); cf. Cressey, 137 N.H. at 405 (explaining that expert “testimony involves the potential risks that a jury may disproportionately defer to the statements of an expert” and “may attach extra importance to an expert’s opinion simply because it is given with the air of authority that commonly accompanies an ex

“As a general rule, necessity may be found if the expert would advise or testify on a matter directly in issue and the showing of necessity will obviously be strongest if the testimony of an expert is essential to establish a matter in issue or could be conclusive on that issue.” State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 115-16 (1985) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 218 (1st Cir.), cert.

Regardless of whether a defendant has invoked equal protection, fundamental fairness necessary for due process, or the right to services to enable his counsel to assist him effectively, an indigent defendant’s access to experts has been said to lie within the sound discretion of the court.

Trial courts must ensure that an expert’s testimony does not supplant the jury’s “responsibility to use [its] own common sense in judging a witness’s credibility.” State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 116, 498 A.2d 330, 333 (1985).

This showing must be made with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

*704 Cressey, 137 N.H. at 410, 628 A.2d at 701; State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 116, 498 A.2d 330, 333 (1985).

Generally, expert opinion of a witness’s credibility is inadmissible because “such testimony carries prejudicial risks that are likely to outweigh any probative value.” State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 116, 498 A.2d 330, 333 (1985).

lie[s] within the sound discretion of the court.” State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 115, 498 A.2d 330, 332 (1985).

State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 116, 498 A.2d 330, 333 (1985) (where expert testifies regarding witness credibility, “aura of importance...

In State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 115, 498 A.2d 330, 332 (1985), we stated that, to win an appeal on this issue, “a defendant must demonstrate by reference to the facts and circumstances of his particular case that the assistance he seeks is necessary ‘to insure effective preparation of [his] defense by [his] attorneys.’.

.” The trial court denied the request for public funds, and the defendant faults the denial as an abuse of discretion in applying the standards that State v. Campbell, 127 N.H. 112, 498 A.2d 330 (1985) held to be applicable under the sixth and fourteenth amendments in reviewing requests to fund ancillary defense services.

Although assessing the full impact which the testimony regarding defendant’s other crimes may have had on the jury is difficult, we recognize that evidence of other crimes has an inherently prejudicial effect, cf. State v. Staples, 120 N.H. at 283, 415 A.2d at 323, and that Upton’s expert testimony would carry substantial weight with the jury.

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).