Cited by

State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 328-29 (1992) (not harmless error when prejudicial testimony may have influenced credibility determination upon which case turned).

had been successfully challenged with respect to the October 15 charge, and the detective’s erroneously admitted testimony about the video excerpts strengthened the State’s case as to the October 12 charges as compared to the October 15 charge, we conclude that the State has not met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted testimony did not affect the verdicts.

Boudreau, 176 N.H. at 13 (“At no point during its cross-examination of the victims did the defense impeach the victims’ credibility with prior inconsistent statements related to the alleged AFSA charges.”); cf. State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 329 (1992) (“Given that the case was ultimately and essentially a credibility contest between the victim and the defendant, and that the victim’s credibility had been attacked by the defense with some success, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt

“Given that the case was ultimately and essentially a credibility contest between the victim and the defendant, and that the victim’s credibility had been attacked by the defense with some success, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted [evidence] did not influence the jury’s determination to believe the [complainant] over the defendant.” State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 329 (1992).

State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 329 (1992) (holding that erroneous admission of evidence was not harmless because “the [complainant’s] credibility had been attacked by the defense with some success”).

State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 329 (1992) (holding that erroneous admission of evidence was not harmless because “the case was ultimately and essentially a credibility contest between the [complainant] and the defendant” and “the [complainant’s] credibility had been attacked by the defense with some success”).

Compare State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 328-29 (1992) (state trooper’s testimony that victim’s contradictory testimony should not diminish her credibility was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

However, it is the province and obligation of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses.

Most recently, in State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 328 (1992), a police officer testified that discrepancies in the testimony of a prior witness, the victim in the ease, should not diminish her credibility.

“The burden to establish [harmless error] lies with the State.” State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 327 (1992).

The detective did not comment upon the credibility of either the victim or the defendant.

Of course, expert testimony concerning a particular child witness’s veracity is inadmissible, see Cressey, 137 N.H. at 412, 628 A.2d at 703, because that determination is solely within the province of the jury, see State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 328, 615 A.2d 637, 639 (1992).

More recently we expressed our concern that a jury upon hearing an expert witness bolster the credibility of the victim might abdicate its responsibility to make difficult credibility determinations.

The burden is on the State to prove harmless error, State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 327, 615 A.2d 637, 638-39 (1992), and this burden is met only if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not affect the verdict.

State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 328-29, 615 A.2d 637, 639 (1992); Campbell, 127 N.H. at 116, 498 A.2d at 333; see also N.H. R. Ev.

Unlike the opinion testimony we held to constitute reversible error in State v. Reynolds, 136 N.H. 325, 615 A.2d 637 (1992), the testimony here was not directed to a specific inconsistency in the victim’s testimony in an effort to explain it.