State v. Eldredge, 91-025
Decision Date | 14 May 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-025,91-025 |
Citation | 607 A.2d 617,135 N.H. 562 |
Parties | The STATE of New Hampshire v. John ELDREDGE. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
John P. Arnold, Atty. Gen. (Cynthia L. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief and orally), for State.
James E. Duggan, Chief Appellate Defender, Concord, by brief and orally, for defendant.
The defendant, John Eldredge, was convicted after a jury trial in the Superior Court (M. Flynn, J.) on two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2 (1986 and Supp.1991) and one count of attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2; RSA 629:1, and sentenced to serve eleven to twenty-two years in the New Hampshire State Prison. The indictments arose from allegations that on two separate occasions the defendant engaged in acts of sexual misconduct with his minor niece. We affirm.
At trial, the State was permitted, under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b), to offer testimonial evidence of sexual acts involving the defendant and the victim that allegedly occurred prior to the indicted acts. The victim testified that when she was eleven or twelve years old the defendant played "roughhouse" with her and her cousins, and that while playing the defendant would touch her breasts over her clothing. She also told of an incident when the defendant woke her as she slept on a couch and kissed her and rubbed her breasts and vagina. The defendant on appeal challenges the adequacy of the trial court's limiting instruction concerning this evidence of prior bad acts.
The procedural history of this issue began with the State's pretrial motion to introduce the prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) for eight purposes other than to show the defendant's propensity to commit acts of sexual misconduct. The defendant objected to admission of the evidence for any purpose. The court made a preliminary finding, conditioned on a voir dire of the victim, that the evidence would be admissible for the purposes requested by the State, and indicated that a clear limiting instruction would be forthcoming upon admission of the evidence at trial and again when the jury was finally charged. After the voir dire, the court ruled that the prior bad acts evidence was admissible "to show the context in which the crime was committed, to show the relationship between the parties, to establish that the defendant believed that the victim was vulnerable and also [was] admissible on the issues of motive, intent and opportunity."
Again, the court noted the defendant's objection to the admissibility of the evidence for any purpose. Nevertheless, the court solicited from both sides requested limiting instructions concerning the Rule 404(b) evidence. The record does not reveal whether either side submitted a request.
At trial, when the State offered the victim's testimony as evidence of the prior bad acts, the defendant requested that the court give the limiting instruction "that [had been] discussed earlier." The court complied by instructing as follows:
The defendant did not object to the limiting instruction at that time nor later when the court again gave it in the final charge to the jury.
Though he did not brief the issue, the defendant maintained at oral argument that a contemporaneous objection to the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hynes
...an error it may have made and is particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction. State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564, 607 A.2d 617 (1992) (quotation omitted). Here, the defendant made no objection to the court's jury instruction in this regard. In fact, the jur......
-
State v. Nightingale
...150 N.H. 80, 84–85, 834 A.2d 297 (2003), or object generally to the admissibility of the evidence itself, see State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564–65, 607 A.2d 617 (1992). To preserve a jury instruction issue for our review, counsel must actually make a specific objection to the court's jur......
-
State v. Davis, 93-085
...754 (1990). This requirement is "particularly appropriate where an alleged error involves a jury instruction." State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564, 607 A.2d 617, 618 (1992) (quotation Affirmed. All concurred. ...
-
State v. Bouchard, 93-349
...trial court was adequately informed of the defendant's argument when it first arose in the pretrial motion. See State v. Eldredge, 135 N.H. 562, 564, 607 A.2d 617, 618 (1992). Therefore, we will resolve this question on the The defendant has not met his burden of showing unfair prejudice. H......