Cited by

Pierce, 176 N.H. at ___,; State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 361 (1999) (holding that a mistrial was warranted after a witness testified that the defendant had sexually assaulted another individual); State v. Woodbury, 124 N.H. 218, 221 (1983) (holding that a mistrial was warranted when the testimony “explicitly revealed to the jury inadmissible evidence of an identical charge

that the children had been touched inappropriately.” The defendant objected to the testimony and requested a mistrial, arguing that the witness’s reference to “children, plural” that “had been touched inappropriately” was similar to State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 361 (1999) (holding that a mistrial was warranted after a witness testified that the defendant had sexually assaulted another individual).

The trial court was in the best position to gauge the prejudicial effect of the detective’s testimony implying that the defendant also admitted engaging in cunnilingus with the victim in an unnamed location.

at 590; see, e.g., State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 360-61 (1999) (holding that alleged sexual assault victim’s statement that “that man raped some girl” warranted mistrial because statement “unambiguously conveyed to the jury the fact that the defendant allegedly had engaged in similar culpable conduct”); State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 177 (1978) (holding that wit

To justify a mistrial, the conduct must be more than merely inadmissible; it must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 358-59 (1999) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, we have held that a mistrial is appropriate when “a defendant’s prior criminal conduct has been unambiguously conveyed to *590 the jury.” State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 360-61 (1999) (quotation omitted).

Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue, it has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is warranted.

When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial, we recognize that the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue and has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is appropriate.

When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial, we recognize that the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue and has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is appropriate.

“A mistrial is appropriate when the circumstances indicate that justice may not be done if the trial continues to a verdict.” State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 358-59 (1999) (quotation omitted).

“To justify a mistrial, prejudicial testimony must be more than inadmissible, it must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Rogers, 138 N.H. 503, 505 (1994) (quotation omitted); see State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 358-59 (2000).

Because the trial court is in the best position to gauge the prejudicial nature of the conduct at issue, it has broad discretion to decide whether a mistrial is appropriate.

*548 “Introduction of such evidence, however, does not automatically require a mistrial.” State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 360 (1999) (quotation omitted).

C A mistrial based'on the introduction of inadmissible evidence is warranted only when the challenged evidence causes-“irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Kerwin, 144 N.H. 357, 358-59, 742 A.2d 527, 528 (1999) (quotation omitted).