Opinion ID: 4099017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inmate’s Testimony about Separate Assault

Text: The defendant also challenges the trial court’s ruling admitting evidence of the pretrial assault on an inmate witness by another inmate with a BOWW tattoo. The defendant argues that the trial court should have excluded the inmate’s testimony relating to the pretrial assault pursuant to New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403. He appears to acknowledge that the testimony was relevant to the credibility of the inmate. He argues, however, that the evidence’s probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. He claims that he was unfairly prejudiced because the inmate’s testimony “allowed for the possible inference by the jury that [he] was involved in the attack.” We disagree. Evidence of the pretrial assault was probative of the inmate’s credibility because it evidenced his motive to deny the defendant’s involvement in the acts underlying the second degree murder charge. Cf. State v. Russell, 159 N.H. 475, 485 (2009) (concluding subsequent bad act evidence of defendant’s threats against witness was relevant to witness’s motive to lie); see also Legere, 157 N.H. at 761 (“Evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness.” (quotation and ellipsis omitted)). As to the matter of prejudice, we disagree that the inmate’s testimony supported an inference that the defendant continued his affiliation with BOWW or that he was complicit in the assault on that inmate. The inmate did not testify that the defendant was still a member of BOWW or that he was involved in the attack. Rather, at the defendant’s request, the State elicited testimony that the attack occurred just before a hearing that did not involve the defendant. Additionally, the defendant later offered testimony that he had severed his connection with BOWW in the year leading up to his trial. Given these circumstances, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We hold that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion when it admitted the inmate’s testimony about the pretrial assault. Finally, any issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived. See State v. Cooper, 168 N.H. 161, 171 (2015). Affirmed. DALIANIS, C.J., and CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred. 8