Cited by

In May 1998, a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder.

We will not reverse a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of said evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

Turning to the second issue, we note that no per se rule of disqualification applies here.

In determining whether evidence is admissible under Rule 803(4), the court must first find that the declarant intended to make the statements to obtain a medical diagnosis or treatment.

‘Whether an appearance of *327 impropriety exists is determined under an objective standard, ie., would a reasonable person, not the judge himself, question the impartiality of the court.” State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 268 (2002) (quotation omitted), cert.

Rather, his primary obligation is to fashion a responsible procedure for ascertaining whether misconduct actually occurred and if so, whether it was prejudicial.” State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 280 (2002), cert.

The simple fact that the trial judge had previously presided over a hearing decided adversely to Sherryland does not warrant recusal.

We will not reverse a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of said evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

“The Code of Judicial Conduct requires disqualification of a judge in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 268 (2002), petition for cert.

Hearsay statements ordinarily do not violate a defendant’s right to confront witnesses so long as they bear “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” State v. Cook, 135 N.H. 655, 662 (1992), or fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 277 (2002); but see State v. Christiansen, 135 N.H. 583, 586 (1992) (blood test report admitted without live testimony constitutes “trial by certificate and affidavit” and violates Confrontation Clause).