Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for attempted first-degree assault and reckless conduct. The court held that the trial court properly admitted a knife seized from the defendant at arrest under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403, concluding that the knife had sufficient probative value and that its potential for unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh that value.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting a knife seized from the defendant when the eyewitness could not initially identify it with complete certainty as the weapon used in the assault.
- Whether the knife's potential to support impermissible character or propensity inferences substantially outweighed its probative value.
Holdings
- Evidence is not of only minimal probative value merely because it cannot be identified with complete certainty. The witness's trial testimony that the seized knife was approximately six inches long, had jagged edges, and looked exactly like the knife used in the altercation was sufficient to establish more than minimal probative value.
- The trial court did not commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion in admitting the knife because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Key quotations
“Based upon our reasoning in Hamel, Farrow and Newcomb, we conclude that the probative value of the knife was more than minimal.” (148 N.H. at 343)
“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury’s sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case.” (148 N.H. at 344)
“Thus, even if the introduction of the knife was somewhat prejudicial, we hold that the knife had sufficient probative value such that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” (148 N.H. at 344)
Factual background
During an altercation at a car dealership, the defendant allegedly lunged at John Bouraphael twice with a knife and slashed Bouraphael's jacket. About a month later, police arrested the defendant in Massachusetts and seized a knife from his possession. Although the knife differed from Bouraphael's initial description in some respects, Bouraphael testified at trial that the seized knife looked exactly like the knife used in the altercation and recognized its serrated edge and blade hole.
Procedural history
The Superior Court denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude the knife and admitted it over objection at trial. The jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree assault and reckless conduct. The defendant appealed, arguing that admission of the knife violated New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.