Cited by

In State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 740 (1993), we interpreted Rule 803(4) as requiring a three-part test before a declarant’s statements may be admitted under that hearsay rule exception.

State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 648-49 (2006) (evidence of the defendant’s abuse of his girlfriend, a prosecution witness, held admissible to explain her participation in criminal conduct, 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 wo

The defendant further argues that the statements failed to satisfy the Roberts test, necessary for admissibility under Rule 803(4).

Throughout trial, the jury would have drawn inferences from other evidence that Smalley was involved in drug-dealing activities.

There are three areas of inquiry for a court in determining the admissibility of evidence under Rule 803(4): the declarant’s intent; the subject matter of the statements; and whether there are circumstances indicating the trustworthiness of the statements.

“The opportunity to impeach a witness’s credibility through cross-examination is an incident of rights guaranteed by part I, article 15 of the State Constitution.” State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 744 (1993).

United States v. Gillespie, 852 F.2d 475, 479 (9th Cir. 1988); cf. State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 738 (1993).

“There are three areas of inquiry for-a court applying Rule 803(4): the declarant’s -intent; the subject matter of the statements; and whether there are circumstances indicating the trustworthiness of the statements.” State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 740, 622 A.2d 1225, 1232 (1993) (citation omitted).

The trial court’s preliminary factual determinations for admissibility under Rule 803(4) will be upheld unless clearly erroneous, see State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 738-40, 622 A.2d 1225, 1230-32 (1993), and absent an abuse of discretion, we will uphold the trial court’s determination that Rule 803(4) evidence should be admitted.

As the federal confrontation clause affords no greater protection than the State confrontation clause, see State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 744, 622 A.2d 1225, 1235 (1993), we consider his claim under the State Constitution first, see State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231, 471 A.2d 347, 351 (1983), and refer to federal law only if it aids in our analysis, see State v. Jaroma, 139 N.H. 611, 613, 660 A.2d 1131, 1132 (1995).

We review decisions limiting the scope of cross-examination for abuse of discretion.

Alternatively, the plaintiff argues that “this [defendant has voluntarily made prior sworn disclosures, and as a result has lost his privilege against self-incrimination.” The defendant’s testimony in any collateral proceeding did not constitute a waiver, however, because “waiver of the privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the witness appears.” State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 745, 622 A.2d 1225, 1235 (1993) (quotation and brackets omitted); see N.H. CONST. pt.

“The decision to admit ‘bad acts’ evidence lies within the trial court’s sound discretion and will be overturned only if the defendant can show that the decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Haley, 141 N.H. 541, 546, 689 A.2d 671, 675 (1997) (quotation and brackets omitted); see State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 746, 622 A.2d 1225, 1236 (1993).

.”); cf. State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 737, 622 A.2d 1225, 1229-30 (1993) (applying RSA 625:4, 1(b)).

“The trial court has discretion in applying Rule 803(4), and we will not disturb a ruling unless it is clearly erroneous.” State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 740, 622 A.2d 1225, 1232 (1993).

See, e.g., State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 747, 622 A.2d 1225, 1236 (1993); State v. Avery, 126 N.H. 208, 213, 490 A.2d 1350, 1354 (1985); State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 639, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984).

See, e.g., Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 642 A.2d 936; Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 635 A.2d 1361; Hastings, 137 N.H. 601, 631 A.2d 526; State v. Blackey, 137 N.H. 91, 623 A.2d 1331 (1993); State v. Roberts, 136 N.H. 731, 622 A.2d 1225 (1993).

There are three areas of inquiry in deciding the admissibility of statements pursuant to the medical treatment hearsay exception: the declarant’s intent, the subject matter of the statements, and the existence of circumstances to indicate that the statements *755 are trustworthy.