Cited by

The State cites State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645 (2002), and State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162 (1993).

The evidence of the defendant’s poverty was not inflammatory, cf. State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 169 (1993) (“[T]he defendant’s graphic boasting about killing a police officer was so inflammatory that we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that it had no effect on the jury’s verdict.”), and was inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s case.

State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 530 (1994) (holding that erroneously admitting “graphic” testimony that the defendant committed a “brutal and sadistic assault” to be error that was not harmless); State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 169 (1993) (“[T]he defendant’s graphic boasting about killing a police officer was so inflammatory that we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that it had no effect on the jury’s verdict.”).

State v. Pepin, 156 N.H. 269, 275-79 (2007) (analyzing a verbal threat under Rule 404(b)); State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 164-68 (1993) (analyzing defendant’s collective statements and behavior shortly before and after the charged offense under Rule 404(b)); People v. Ventimiglia, 420 N.E.2d 59, 63 (N.Y.

officer, he “was aware that his actions would cause the death of a law enforcement officer who was acting in the line of duty”); State v. Howe, 159 N.H. 366, 376-77 (2009) (holding that evidence that the defendant sought out websites containing child pornography and that he regularly viewed such pornography was relevant to show that he knowingly possessed child pornography); State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 166 (1993) (deciding that evidence of the defendant’s threatening behavior towards the

See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 166 (1993); State v. Brewster, 147 N.H. 645, 649-50 (2002).

See, e.g., State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 164-65 (1993) (analyzing defendant’s intertwined statements and behavior shortly preceding charged events under Rule 404(b)).

at 182; see State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162 (1993) (prior threats against victim admissible to prove assault because probative of defendant’s intent to intimidate and terrorize victim).

“[F]or subsequent bad act evidence to satisfy the relevancy prong of our three-pronged test, the act must be fairly close in time and in some significant way connected to material events constituting the crime[s] charged.” State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 167 (1993).

In State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 163 (1993), for instance, the defendant was convicted of, among other things, simple assault.

nsider such factors as whether the evidence would have a great emotional impact upon a jury, its potential for appealing to a juror’s sense of resentment or outrage, the extent to which the issue upon which it is offered is established by other evidence, stipulation, or inference, id., and whether the evidence is relevant to prove an issue that is actually in serious dispute, State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 166 (1993).

State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 165-66 (1993); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 295 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

In order to prove the defendant guilty of criminal threatening, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant threatened the victim with a purpose to terrorize him.

By filing a notice of self-defense, the defendant has placed her state of mind at issue.

Compare State v. Kirsch, 139 N.H. 647, 653, 662 A.2d 937, 942 (1995) (sexual assault) with State v. Newcomb, 140 N.H. 72, 74, *576 663 A.2d 613, 615 (1995) (murder) and State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 165, 635 A.2d 1361, 1364 (1993) (simple assault, theft, criminal threatening).

“To prevail on appeal, the defendant must show that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 169, 635 A.2d 1361, 1366 (1993).

“Particularly pertinent to determining [the balance between prejudice and probative worth] is whether the evidence is relevant to prove an issue that is actually in serious dispute.” State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 166, 635 A.2d 1361, 1364 (1993).

“The only connection is the putative similarity of the activity,” State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 167, 635 A.2d 1361, 1365 (1993), and to argue that evidence of the defendant’s other similar assaults tends to prove his guilt of the charged offenses is to seek to show “propensity, pure and simple; calling it relevant to prove ’state of mind’ does not make it so.” Id.

State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 166, 635 A.2d 1361, 1364 (1993) (finding evidence of the defendant’s other bad acts relevant to show the victim’s state of mind at the time of the charged offenses).

State v. Allen, 128 N.H. 390, 397, 514 A.2d 1263, 1268 (1986); cf. State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 167, 635 A.2d 1361, 1365 (1993) (subsequent bad act evidence “must be fairly close in time and in some significant way connected to material events constituting the crime charged”).

In deciding this issue, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.

State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 168, 635 A.2d 1361, 1365 (1993); Blackey, 137 N.H. at 95, 96, 623 A.2d at 1333, 1334.