Cited by

her delay in reporting, and her initial false statements to police); State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 747 (1993) (in witness tampering prosecution, testimony of defendant’s prior sexual relationship with witness involving exchange of drugs and money for sex was relevant to defendant’s belief that the witness would testify in the underlying prostitution and drug conspiracy cases); State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991) (evidence of defendant’s prior indictments for sexually assaulting the vict

State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991) (defendant could not complain of error on appeal when he failed to request limiting instruction or object to its absence at trial); State v. Hebert, 158 N.H. 306, 315 (2009) (defendant must object to trial court’s failure to give limiting instruction to preserve issue for appellate review).

Id.; see State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645 (2002) (prior threat against victim admissible to prove harassment and criminal threatening charges because probative of defendant’s motive and intent and victim’s state of mind); State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991) (prior sexual contact with victim admissible to show intent to touch victim for sexual gratification).

“As such, he cannot now complain of error.” State v. Pelletier, 149 N.H. 243, 253 (2003); see State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991).

e defendant on the later occasion acted with an intent to terrorize [the victim] and that those actions placed her in fear for her physical safety.” Id.; see State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645, 649-50 (2002) (prior threats against victim admissible to prove harassment and criminal threatening charges because probative of defendant’s motive and intent and of victim’s state of mind); State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991) (prior sexual contact with victim is admissible to show intent to touch thi

State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207 (1991); see State v. Scovill, 144 N.H. 409, 413 (1999).

State v. Parra, 135 N.H. 306, 309 (1992); State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 205 (1991).

Generally, a defendant must request a limiting instruction at trial in order to preserve that issue for appellate review.

While *259 the State argues that the defendant should have objected again, we conclude that he was under no obligation to do so once it became apparent that the trial judge had conclusively decided to simply instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s last remark.

“Because the defendant failed to request such instruction[] or object to [its] absence, he cannot now complain of error.” State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207, 600 A.2d 928, 931 (1991).

State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207, 600 A.2d 928, 930 (1991) (evidence of defendant’s prior indictments for sexually assaulting the victim admissible as probative of his specific intent “to touch her for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification” rather than innocently); State v. Gruber, 132 N.H. 83, 89, 562 A.2d 156, 159 (1989) (in an insu

.” State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207, 600 A.2d 928, 930 (1991) (quotation omitted).

At trial, the defendant raised no objection, contemporaneous or otherwise, to the testimony.

Thus, while the prior acts evidence may have demonstrated the defendant’s propensity for violent behavior, it was relevant to his intent to act towards this particular victim in an intimidating manner.

See, e.g., State v. Dushame, 136 N.H. 309, 616 A.2d 469 (1992); State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 600 A.2d 928 (1991).

Lapage, 57 N.H. at 289; see also State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 207, 600 A.2d 928, 930 (1991).

The decision to admit prior wrongs or bad acts as proof of motive is discretionary.

bsence of mistake or accident.” Before admitting evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), the trial court must determine that (1) the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than to prove character or disposition; (2) there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior offense; and (3) the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

Consistent with our recent decision in State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 205, 600 A.2d 928, 929 (1991), where the State’s identical argument was rejected, we hold that the defendant’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude the evidence was adequate to preserve the issue for appellate review and that a contemporaneous objection at trial was not required.

We recently stated a narrow exception to this rule in State v. Simonds, 135 N.H. 203, 600 A.2d 928 (1991), holding that when a defendant objects to the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence in a pretrial hearing, the defendant need not object contemporaneously when the evidence is admitted at trial.

We have recently decided this issue against the State.