Cited by

Here, the Newmarket police report contained multiple levels of hearsay.

The focus of our inquiry is upon whether joinder jeopardized the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

“[I]n order for a hearsay declaration which itself contains a hearsay statement, to be admissible to prove the truth of the included statement, both the statement and the included statement must meet the tests of an exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477 (1985) (quotation omitted).

The critical inquiry is whether “the defendant’s right to a fair trial was jeopardized by non-severance.” State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 473, 503 A.2d 798, 799 (1985).

A decision on the admissibility of hearsay evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.

*160 It is for the trial court to determine whether testimony is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, and “we will not disturb its determination unless we find it to be clearly erroneous.” State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985).

State v. Richards, 129 N.H. 669, 531 A.2d 338; State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 503 A.2d 798 (1985); State v. Woodman, 125 N.H. 381, 480 A.2d 169.

See, e.g., State v. Bergmann, 135 N.H. 97, 599 A.2d 502 (1991); State v. Stearns, 130 N.H. 475, 491, 547 A.2d 672, 681 (1988); State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985); see also Sup.

State v. Stearns, 130 N.H. 475, 491, 547 A.2d 672, 681 (1988) (citing State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985)); Sup.

When the crimes charged are related or are apparent parts of a common scheme or plan, see State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984), and where the evidence is simple and unlikely to confuse a jury, as was the case here, it is improbable that a trial judge would have granted any severance requested.

Upon review of the record, we hold that the trial court’s determination is not lacking in evidential support, and thus we affirm.

It is well established that the moving party “has the burden of ‘presenting a record sufficient to allow this court to decide the issue presented on appeal.’” State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 477, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985) (quoting Brown v. Cathay Island, Inc., 125 N.H. 112, 115, 480 A.2d 43, 44 (1984)); Sup.

Biggers, supra at 199-200; Howe, supra at 123, 523 A.2d at 96; State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 475, 503 A.2d 798, 802 (1985); Allard, supra at 213, 459 A.2d at 262.

In deciding whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the vital question is “whether the defendant’s right to a fair trial was jeopardized by non-severance.” State v. Winders, 127 N.H. 471, 473, 503 A.2d 798, 799 *310 (1985).

In determining whether consolidation in a given case was proper, we must ask whether the evidence in support of each offense was brief, simple and unlikely to confuse a jury, and easily referable to each crime.