Cited by

Compare State v. Thibedau, 142 N.H. 325, 330 (1997) (harmless error where the State referenced the disputed evidence in a “small portion” of its closing argument and the evidence was not “lengthy, comprehensive, or directly linked to a determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant” (quotation omitted)), and State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159 (1997) (harmless error where the State did not “call particular attention to [the disputed evidence] in closing argument”), abrogated on other

State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 156 (1997) (concluding that the victim’s testimony about a pornographic video did not eliminate the probative value of playing the video for the jury in order to convey its graphic nature).

In State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149 (1997), we also found that the defendant had not introduced a time-based defense, but rather had simply introduced evidence that tended to impeach the credibility of the victims.

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to *123 appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.

Rather, RSA 651:6 “merely provides an alternative extended sentence for certain offenses which the trial court may impose provided certain criteria are met.” State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 162 (1997).

State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159 (1997) (quotations and brackets omitted).

For instance, we have approved joining related charges of child sexual abuse because the evidence of each was brief, simple and unlikely to confuse the jury, see State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 154-55 (1997), and also have approved severing them because of the “high potential for prejudice” in joining these types of charges, see State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 177-79 (1978).

We need not decide whether the admission of the gambling records was error under Rule 404(b), “because even if it was erroneous, the error was harmless.” State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 157 (1997).

The defendant has adapted a line of reasoning initially used in State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149 (1997).

While the defendant concedes that time is not an element of the offense of giving alcohol to a minor, he contends that because he raised a defense based upon lack of opportunity, the State must prove that the acts occurred within the time frame alleged in the informations.

State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159, 697 A.2d 930, 937 (1997) (fact that prosecutor did not specifically mention evidence in closing argument contributed to determination that its admission was harmless).

Crosby, 142 N.H. at 139, 697 A.2d at 1380; State v. Marti, 140 N.H. 692, 695, 672 A.2d 709, 711 (1996); cf. State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 158, 697 A.2d 930, 936 (1997) (admission of other bad acts harmless where, inter alia, they “bore *696 no similarity to the charged sexual acts”).

“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159, 697 A.2d 930, 937 (1997) (quotation omitted); see N.H. R. Ev.

We agree with the State that even if the doctor’s testimony was speculative and should have been excluded, the error was harmless.

State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159, 697 A.2d 930, 937 (1997) (citations and quotation omitted); see State v. Morales, 136 N.H. 616, 619, 620 A.2d 1034, 1036 (1993); cf. N.H. R. Ev.

We agree with the State that even if it were error to permit the testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

at 166, 697 A.2d at 510; see also State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 162, 697 A.2d 930, 939 (1997).

“An error may be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the alternative evidence of the defendant’s guilt is of an overwhelming nature, quantity, or weight, and if the inadmissible evidence is merely cumulative or inconsequential in relation to the strength of the State’s evidence of guilt.” State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 158, 697 A.2d 930, 936 (1997) (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).

Lucius, 140 N.H. at 64, 663 A.2d at 608; State v. Hutchinson, 137 N.H. 591, 596, 631 A.2d *166 523, 526 (1993); State v. Houtenbrink, 130 N.H. 385, 386-87, 539 A.2d 714, 715 (1988); Heald, 123 N.H. at 470, 464 A.2d at 276; see also State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 162, 697 A.2d 930, 938-39 (1997) (rejecting double jeopardy assertion where defendant was convicted once pursuant to RSA 632-A:2, I(l) (1996) and sentenced once under RSA 651:6, I(f), II(a) (1996)).