Cited by

The factors that we have considered in assessing whether an error did not affect the verdict include, but are not limited to: (1) the strength of the State’s case, see State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158 (1994); (2) whether the admitted or excluded evidence is cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s case, see State v. Lemieux, 136 N.H. 329, 331-32 (1992); (3) the frequency of the error, see State v. Bujnowski, 130 N.H. 1, 5-6 (1987); (4) the presence or absen

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160 (1994) 1When Stevens proposed that the defendant take a lie detector test, the defendant responded that he would not do so until he talked to his lawyer.

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158 (1994) (concluding that the erroneous admission of DNA evidence was harmless because of the overwhelming nature, quantity, and weight of other evidence).

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58 (1994) (setting forth harmless error standard).

.” Defense counsel then argued that the witness’s testimony was admissible pursuant to the Ellsworth exception to Rule 608(b)’s bar to extrinsic evidence because he had submitted “clear proof” that, had the victim actually made the accusation she threatened to make, it “would’ve been false.” Alternatively, defense counsel argued that the testimony was admissible under State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 165-67 (1994), to show that the victim “was lying on the stand.” The trial court ruled that t

d unconstitutional, by “mak[ing] repeated communications [to his ex-girlfriend] at extremely inconvenient hours or in offensively coarse language with a purpose to annoy or alarm [her].” See RSA 594:13 (“If a lawful cause of arrest exists, the arrest will be lawful even though the officer charged the wrong offense or gave a reason that did not justify the arrest.”); see also State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 163 (1994) (reciting standard for probable cause to arrest).

In assessing whether an officer had probable cause, we do not view each item of evidence separately, but rather as a whole, and from the arresting officer’s point of view at the time the arrest was made.

“We will not overturn a trial court’s determination of probable cause unless, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the decision is 7 contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 164 (1994).

In deciding whether the State has met its burden, we consider the strength of the alternative evidence presented at trial.

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted).

The State argues that we review a trial court’s determination of probable cause deferentially, quoting State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 164 (1994), in which we stated that we would not “overturn a trial court’s determination of probable cause unless, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Because the defendant does not argue for a different standard, we a

Under New Hampshire law, “[a] prosecutor has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.” Stowe, 162 N.H. at 473 (quotation omitted); State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160 (1994); see State v. Merritt, 143 N.H. 714, 720-21 (1999) (applying same standard under Federal Constitution).

Specifically, he asserts that at the time of his arrest there was no probable cause that he “knew he was not allowed to be on the premises.” An officer has probable cause to arrest when he has “sufficient, trustworthy information to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the arrestee has committed a crime.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 163 (1994).

Rather, the prosecutor was drawing “reasonable inferences from the facts proven, and ha[d] great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160 (1994).

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 165 (1994) (upholding the trial court’s denial of motion to suppress because inconsistencies between testimony at the suppression hearing and trial were insufficient to find error).

State v. Boetti, 142 N.H. 255, 260 (1997); State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160 (1994).

has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160 (1994) (quotation omitted).

Because we have previously discussed the general theory underlying DNA profiling, see State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 152-54 (1994); Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. at 368-73, we begin our discussion with a brief overview of PCR-based STR DNA testing.

Importantly, the Daubert test does not stand for the proposition that scientific knowledge must be absolute or irrefutable.

The State may not ask the jury to base its decision upon evidence not in the record.

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58 (1994) (citations and quotations omitted).

Extrinsic evidence is permissible, however, when it directly contradicts a witness’s testimony because such evidence does not attack the witness’s general credibility, but rather the truthfulness of the specific testimony.

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted).

Furthermore, because the victim “perjured herself” in testifying that she never told a court that she had a broken back, the defendant argues that the trial court should have admitted the domestic violence petition as extrinsic evidence of her “perjury.” See State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 167, 652 A.2d 671, 685 (1994).

“A prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the facts proven, and has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160, 652 A.2d 671, 680 (1994) (quotation omitted).

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 150, 652 A.2d 671, 674 (1994) (detailing Vandebogart’s prior sexual assaults).

We determine the effect of an error by assessing “whether it can be said' beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible evidence did not affect the verdict.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotation omitted).

We consider the alternative evidence presented at trial and the character of the inadmissible evidence itself.

Accordingly, to constitute reversible error, the prosecutor’s argument must “have caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant, causing him reasonably to conclude that continuation of the tainted proceeding would result in his conviction.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 160, 652 A.2d 671, 680 (1994) (quotation omitted).

State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 158, 697 A.2d 930, 936 (1997); State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994).

State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted).

“The evaluation of whether this standard has been achieved involves consideration of the alternative evidence presented at trial and of the character of the inadmissible evidence itself.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotation and citation omitted).

Therefore, even assuming that the admission of the statement was error, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was harmless.

*279 State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 157-58, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (citations and quotations omitted).

The police, however, are expected only to have the same understanding of the circumstances as would a person of reasonable prudence and caution.

After consideration of the other evidence at trial and the character of the challenged evidence, we may conclude that an error is harmless when “the alternative evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotations and citations omitted).

“The burden is on the State to prove harmless error, and this burden is met only if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not affect the verdict.” State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145, 158, 652 A.2d 671, 679 (1994) (quotation omitted).

He is currently serving a life sentence for that crime.