Cited by

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 b

State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 528 (1994) (discussing the requirements for a common plan under Rule 404(b)).

The *580 distinguishing characteristic of a plan “is the existence of a true plan in the defendant’s mind which includes the charged and uncharged crimes as stages in the plan’s execution.” State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 528 (1994) (quotation omitted).

When such highly prejudicial evidence is improperly admitted, cf. State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 526, 642 A.2d 936, 938 (1994) (discussing when prior bad acts may be admissible), curative instructions are usually ineffective to remedy the error and “serve[] only to emphasize the prejudice,” State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179-80, 385 A.2d 108, 110 (1978).

State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 526, 642 A.2d 936, 938 (1994) (identifying requirements for admission of prior bad acts evidence).

We review the trial court’s exercise of discretion to determine whether its “ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the [defendant’s] case.” State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 527, 642 A.2d 936, 938 (1994) (quotation omitted).

The foundational premise for admitting other bad acts on the grounds of absence of mistake or accident is a defendant’s claim of mistake or accident as a defense.

The distinguishing characteristic of a plan “is the existence of a true plan in the defendant’s mind which includes the charged and uncharged crimes as stages in the plan’s execution.” State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 528, 642 A.2d 936, 939 (1994) (quotation omitted).

The charged and uncharged acts must be stages in the plan’s execution.

We will reverse the determination as an abuse of that discretion only if the appealing party can demonstrate that the ruling was untenable or unreasonable and that the error prejudiced the party’s case.

Evidence of other bad acts is only admissible if relevant for a purpose other than to prove the defendant’s character or disposition, if there is clear proof the defendant committed the other acts, and if the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

In ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b), the trial court exercises its sound discretion, and we will find error “only if the defendant can show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Whittaker, 138 N.H. 524, 526-27, 642 A.2d 936, 938 (1994) (quotation omitted).

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.