Cited by

Thus, the prior threat constituted “a material part of the entire course of conduct surrounding the commission of the alleged crime[].” State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 517 (1994).

Because an opening statement is not itself evidence, State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516 (1994), when applying the opening-the-door doctrine to opening statements, the precise question becomes whether the opening statement, by referencing anticipated evidence, opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence.

testimony was admissible evidence of a single criminal episode”); Nightingale, 160 N.H. at 574 (emphasizing that “[t]he conversations at issue and the crime charged in the indictment [were] part of a single criminal episode” in concluding Rule 404(b) did not apply (quotation omitted)); State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 517-18 (1994) (explaining that Rule 404(b) did not apply to threats defendant made to victim because the threats “were a material part of the entire course of conduct surrounding the

See, e.g., Hall, 148 N.H. at 675 (upholding trial court’s ruling that testimony that defendant in felonious sexual assault case asked victim to kiss her female cousin did not amount to prior bad act, but was “part and parcel” of same episode); State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 517 (1994) (affirming decision to admit defendant’s threats to victim, which included statements that defendant killed victim’s dog, because threats “were a material part of the entire course of conduct surrounding the commis

Ordinarily, prior to the admission of such evidence, the following three determinations must be made: (1) that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition; (2) that there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior offenses; and (3) that the prejudice to the defendant does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

Dewitt, 143 N.H at 28; State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 514-15 (1994).

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516 (1994) (explaining, in response to challenge to prosecutor’s opening statement, that to justify a mistrial, remarks or the conduct of counsel must be more than merely inadmissible; they must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by a jury instruction); State v. Dayutis, 127 N.H. 101, 103 (1985)

As the trial court aptly noted, the defendant’s abuse of Siegel was relevant for non-propensity reasons to explain her justifiable fear of the defendant that prompted her to chamber the round and subsequently lie to the police.

The indictments alleged that between April 11, 1981, and April 10, 1986, the defendant engaged in various acts of sexual penetration with the victim prior to her thirteenth birthday.

As an initial matter, counsel’s opening statement is not evidence.

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 517 (1994); United States v. O’Brien, 131 F.3d 1428, 1432 (10th Cir. 1997) (Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not apply to gambling records inextricably intertwined with evidence of crime charged).

As he did not *467 bring the constitutional claim to the attention of the trial court, the issue is not preserved for appeal, and we decline to review it.

cern he advances; namely, his inability to exercise his right to vote by means of absentee ballot violates equal protection and “the right to vote itself.” Because he does not articulate his reliance on either the State or Federal Constitution, fails to cite a provision of the New Hampshire Constitution, and cites federal cases to support his claim, we limit our review to the Federal Constitution.

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516, 643 A.2d 946, 951 (1994) (opening statement not evidence).

We have stated that “[t]he distinction between rehabilitation of a witness’s credibility as to particular testimony and the truth of the testimony itself is difficult and requires a careful explanation in the limiting instruction.” Huard, 138 N.H. at 261, 638 A.2d at 791; see State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 514-15, 643 A.2d 946, 950 (1994).

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 515, 643 A.2d 946, 950 (1994) (quotation omitted).

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 514-15, 643 A.2d 946, 950 (1994); Allstate Ins.

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516, 643 A.2d 946, 951 (1994) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted); see Walton v. City of Manchester, 140 N.H. 403, 408, 666 A.2d 978, 981-82 (1995), Remedial action includes, but is not limited to, curative jury instructions, which the jury is presumed to follow.

We need not decide whether the trial court erred in ruling that the evidence of prior sexual assault fell outside the scope of Rule 404(b).

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 518, 643 A.2d 946, 952 (1994) (evidence that the defendant abused and killed the victim’s pets established “the very threat that coerced the victim to comply with the defendant’s demands”); State v. Johnson, 130 N.H. 578, 582-84, 547 A.2d 213, 215-16 (1988) (evidence of other coerced sexual activity between the def