State v. Berry

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Paul Berry’s convictions for aggravated felonious sexual assault and misdemeanor sexual assault. The court held that evidence of Berry’s prior physical abuse of the victim was admissible under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) to explain her delayed reporting and assess credibility. The court also upheld the exclusion of defense witnesses’ reputation testimony because the witnesses lacked a sufficiently reliable foundation.

Holdings

1. Evidence of the defendant's physical abuse and threats toward the victim was admissible under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) for the non-propensity purpose of explaining the victim's fear and delay in reporting the alleged sexual assaults.
2. The trial court properly excluded the two witnesses' testimony about the victim's reputation for truthfulness because the defendant failed to lay a reliable foundation under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that the defendant physically abused and threatened the victim was admissible under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b), even though the trial court analyzed it under Rules 401, 402, and 403 rather than expressly applying Rule 404(b).
2. Whether the trial court properly excluded two witnesses' reputation testimony concerning the victim's truthfulness because the defendant failed to establish a reliable foundation under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(a).

Disposition

affirmed