Cited by

Additionally, we must consider the impact of the court’s presumed error in admitting the challenged texts together with its error in admitting the friend’s testimony.

a limiting instruction is to explain the proper purpose or purposes for which the evidence may be used and thereby minimize the danger that the jury will draw impermissible inferences from the evidence of the defendant’s other crimes.” State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 61 (1986); see also State v. Smith, 125 N.H. 522, 526 (1984) (“The trial court, when giving limiting instructions, must take care that the instructions do indeed strive to limit the jury’s consideration to the narrow purpose or purpos

State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 57 (1986) (abiding and repeated contempt for law may evince lack of trustworthiness though the violations may be for crimes not involving dishonesty or false statement); Deschenes, 156 N.H. at 78 (number of prior convictions may evince the degree to which defendant’s contempt for the law is abiding and repeated).

This admission rendered unnecessary Michelle’s extended and descriptive recitation of the past sexual abuse to which she had been subjected by the defendant.

Even if the conviction and sentence had been relevant to prove motive and intent, the trial court’s “limiting instruction” told the jury that the evidence could be considered as proof of motive, intent, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident, which failed to limit the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence.

Our experience has been similar.

State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986); State v. O’Leary, 128 N.H. 661, 670, 517 A.2d 1174, 1181 (1986).

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.

State v. Pond, 133 N.H. 738, 740, 584 A.2d 770, 771 (1990) (after not pros of “knowingly” indictment, grand jury “corrected] the mens rea to ‘purposely’”); State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 61, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986) (defendant “was charged with acting purposely”); State v. Smith, 127 N.H. 433, 436, 503 A.2d 774, 776 (1985) (defendant “must have purposely engaged in sexual penetration”); State v. Shute, 122 N.H. 498, 504, 446 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1982) (indictment charged defendant did “‘purposely engag

Evidence of prior bad acts is inherently prejudicial and carries substantial weight with the jury.

state of mind necessarily followed and, therefore, “the real issue in this case was whether the conduct occurred at all.” Thus he contends that the evidence was not relevant for a purpose other than to prove character or propensity, and the trial court erred in allowing the prior bad act evidence to show intent because the probative value of that evidence was “extremely weak.” In State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60-61, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986), this court stated that “when there is a need to prove th

State v. Pond, 132 N.H. 472, 475, 567 A.2d 992, 994 (1989) {mens rea for felonious sexual assault is “purposely,” which is synonymous with “intentionally”); State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 61, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986) (because State was required to prove the highest of the culpable states of mind, the evidence would have been admissible); Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958, 975 (D.C.

In State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986), we determined that the three-pronged analysis of Barker is also required under Rule 404(b).

be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Before allowing “bad acts” evidence to go before the jury, the trial court must preliminarily determine whether (1) the “‘evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant,”’ State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986) (quoting State v. Barker, 117 N.H. 543, 546, 374 A.2d 1179, 11

We have previously noted that “[w]hen considering the admissibility of evidence of other crimes under Rule 404(b), the trial court must consider whether the evidence is offered to prove an issue that is actually in dispute and, if so, how serious the dispute really is.” State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 60, 523 A.2d 60, 65 (1986).

Under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 609(a), “‘evidence of prior convictions is admissible if it will be of assistance in properly evaluating the testimony of the defendant witness and if its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.’ ” State v. Hickey, 129 N.H. 53, 57, 523 A.2d 60, 63 (1986) (quoting State v. Vanguilder, 126 N.H. 326, 330, 493 A.2d 1116, 1120 (1985)).

The requirements of Barker are also required under Rule 404(b).

Here, the defendant’s offer to stipulate was such an action.