Cited by

at 410-12; see also State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 108-10 (1996); State v. Marden, 172 N.H. 258, 263-65 (2019).

at 78 (quoting State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 109 (1996)) (brackets 9 omitted).

In later cases, we clarified that testimony regarding a sexual assault complainant’s specific behavior is inadmissible if its purpose is to prove that abuse occurred or if an expert testifies that the particular complainant’s behaviors are consistent with those of a person who has been sexually abused.

.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 109 (1996) (quotation and citation omitted).

if its purpose is to prove that abuse occurred, or if the expert testifies that the particular victim’s behaviors were consistent with one who had been abused.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 109 (1996); see State v. Chamberlain, 137 N.H. 414, 418-19 (1993) (expert’s testimony “that the behaviors of the child victim were consistent with those of a child who had been sexually abused” was inadmissible and did not constitute harmless error).

State v. Cressey, 137 N.H. 402, 412 (1993) (holding that “State may offer expert testimony explaining the [counterintuitive] behavioral characteristics commonly found in child abuse victims to rebut any inferences that a child victim witness is lying”); State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 110 (1996) (expert testimony that allows a jury to draw inferences that tend to bolster victim’s credibility is not inadmissible because “[s]o long as the expert does not render an opinion on the accuracy of the vic

The scope and wording of jury instructions, however, are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and are evaluated as a reasonable juror would have interpreted them.

Because the witness’s testimony did not create a misimpression that DCYF concluded the investigation based upon a finding that abuse did not occur, or that the witness personally believed the recantation, the defendant did not “open the door” for otherwise inadmissible testimony to be elicited by the State, i.e., commentary on the veracity of the victim’s statements, see State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 108-09 (1996); State v. Kulas, 145 N.H. 246, 247 (2000).

Because of its counterintuitive nature, expert testimony may be permitted to educate the jury about apparent inconsistent behavior by a victim following an assault and to “provid[e] useful information that is beyond the common experience of an average juror.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 109 (1996).

at 27; cf. State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 111 (1996).

“The scope and wording of jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and are evaluated as a reasonable juror would have interpreted them.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 114 (1996).

This rule prevents a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible evidence favorable to the State and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 114 (1996) (quotation omitted).

“The scope and wording of jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and are evaluated as a reasonable juror would have interpreted them.” State v. MacRae, 141 N.H. 106, 114, 677 A.2d 698, 704 (1996).

Ct. App. Div. 1997); cf. State v. McRae, 141 N.H. 106, 114, 677 A.2d 698, 704 (1996).