Cited by

State v. Sargeant, 148 N.H. 571, 574 (2002); State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 713-15 (1998); State v. Locke, 139 3 N.H. 741, 744 (1995); State v. Taylor, 139 N.H. 96, 98 (1994).

The defendant must “provide the court with a logical factual basis for his request, based on information independently obtained, that the information sought may yield relevant evidence.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 714 (1998).

“[T]o succeed on a motion to depose, the defendant must make a threshold showing of necessity given the particular facts and circumstances of his case.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 715 (1998).

Defense counsel countered that the witness’s testimony fell within an exception to Rule 608(b)’s bar to extrinsic evidence, which we adopted in State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 718-19 (1998), and which applies to allegedly false allegations of sexual assault.

To determine whether alleged cumulative errors require reversal, we first determine whether the trial court did, in fact, err.

the cumulative effect of the conduct of the police in obtaining the Miranda waiver is that a reasonable doubt exists that the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.” Having found each of the defendant’s specific arguments unpersuasive, we also find his cumulative effect argument unpersuasive.

State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 717-18 (1998); accord State v. Jacobs, 689 S.E.2d 859, 864 (N.C.

The defendant’s request for an in camera review of the victim’s counseling records is governed by State v. Gagne.

*281 With other allegations of sexual assault, we have created an exception to this bar on extrinsic evidence “where the allegations are similar, and the proffered evidence is highly probative of the material issue of the complainant’s motives.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 719 (1998).

State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 719 (1998) (“[D]ue process and confrontation rights guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions may trump established evidentiary rules.”).

should not be interpreted so strictly as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence that is probative of a material issue.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 719 (1998).

In State v. Ellsworth, we held for the first time that extrinsic evidence of a prior false allegation of sexual assault by a victim in a sexual assault case could be admitted under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(b) “only where the allegations are similar, and the proffered evidence is highly probative of the material issue of the complainant’s motives.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 719 (1998).

State v. Berrocales, 140 N.H. 647, 649 (1996); State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 720 (1998).

To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” State v. Warren, 143 N.H. 633, 636 (1999) (quotation and citation omitted); see State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 716 (1998).

*261 In State v. Ellsworth, we held that extrinsic evidence of a prior false allegation of sexual assault by a victim in a sexual assault case should be admitted under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(b) “only where the allegations are similar, and the proffered evidence is highly probative of the material issue of the complainant’s motives.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 719 (1998).

*552 “Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the scope of cross-examination and we will not overturn the trial court’s ruling absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 720, 709 A.2d 768, 774 (1993) (quotation omitted).

Bassett, 139 N.H. at 500, 659 A.2d at 896; cf. State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 717, 709 A.2d 768, 773 (1998) (recognizing that it is impermissible to admit evidence where the logical connection between events justifying relevance involves propensity).

State v. Ellsworth, 142 N.H. 710, 718-19, 709 A.2d 768, 773-74 (1998) (due process rights may trump evidentiary rules but defendant must first make threshold showing of probity to justify admission of testimony).