DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Dean, 533 A.2d 333.

14 citing documents.

  • State v. Tyler 973 A.2d 311 N.H. 2009
    105; see also, e.g., State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 652 (2006); State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750 (1987).
  • State v. Wamala 972 A.2d 1071 N.H. 2009
    State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750 (1987) (defendant’s claim of prejudice from potential substantive use of prior consistent statement unfounded, especially in light of trial court’s limiting instruction).
  • State v. Beltran 904 A.2d 709 N.H. 2006
    State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750 (1987) (defendant’s claim of prejudice from potential substantive use of prior consistent statement unfounded, especially in light of trial court’s limiting instruction).
  • State v. Rogan 864 A.2d 382 N.H. 2005
    *634 In State v. Dean, we held that a prosecutrix’s entire statement was properly admitted to show that the statement as a whole was consistent with her testimony, and that any inconsistencies were insignificant.
  • State v. Smith 827 A.2d 985 N.H. 2003
    State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750 (1987) (defendant’s claim of prejudice from potential substantive use of prior consistent statement unfounded, especially in light of trial court’s limiting instruction).
  • State v. Higgins 821 A.2d 964 N.H. 2003
    from unnecessary embarrassment, prejudice, and harassment.” State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 748 (1987).
  • State v. Spaulding 794 A.2d 800 N.H. 2002
    Cf State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 748-49 (1987) (appropriate to exclude evidence of sexual acts where its marginally probative value was far outweighed by prejudicial effect when purpose of questions was “to portray th[e] victim before the jury as some sort of a masochistic tramp”).
  • State v. Scovill 743 A.2d 303 N.H. 1999
    The State next relies on the common law rule of rehabilitation, arguing that the court acted within its discretion in admitting a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate a witness whose credibility had been impeached.
  • State v. Dewitt 719 A.2d 570 N.H. 1998
    at 620, 620 A.2d at 1036-37; State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 749-50, 533 A.2d 333, 337 (1987).
  • State v. Frost 686 A.2d 1172 N.H. 1996
    State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 748, 533 A.2d 333, 336 (1987); RSA 632-A:6, II (Supp. 1995); N.H. R. Ev.
  • State v. Huard 638 A.2d 787 N.H. 1994
    McSheehan, 137 N.H. at 183, 624 A.2d at 561; State v. Morales, 136 N.H. 616, 619-20, 620 A.2d 1034, 1036-37 (1993); State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 750, 533 A.2d 333, 337 (1987).
  • State v. McSheehan 624 A.2d 560 N.H. 1993
    In so doing, he expressly relied on New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 106 and 801(d)(1)(B) and on State v. Dean, 129 N.H. 744, 533 A.2d 333 (1987).
  • State v. Morales 620 A.2d 1034 N.H. 1993
    Statements that meet these criteria are admitted as substantive evidence.
  • State v. Cox 575 A.2d 1320 N.H. 1990
    Clearly, the information contained in the Hunter documents was insufficient to justify permitting a jury to hear evidence of the victim’s involvement in the prior unrelated conviction.