Opinion ID: 1887482
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smart's credibility

Text: Next, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting his threats as probative of his mother's credibility under the first prong of the Rule 404(b) analysis. The State argued that the threats were probative of his mother's credibility because his mother knew and approved of the threats and discussed the possibility that Senter would be harmed. The defendant contends that, assuming that his mother condoned his threats, the State failed to articulate how that evidence would be probative of his mother's credibility without relying upon propensity-based inferences. The State counters that the threats were probative of the defendant's mother's bias and motive to lie. The State argues that Smart's alibi testimony was crucial to the determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence, so that her credibility was critical. The trial court ruled that the State could question the defendant's mother about the defendant's threats, finding that [t]he statements made by the defendant are admissions, and are admissible as evidence. If she testified inconsistently with her prior statements, the trial court ruled that the State could introduce the telephone conversations for the limited purpose of witness credibility. The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider the defendant's conversations with his mother to determine [her] credibility, and whether she has any bias or relationship or animosity towards individuals involved in this case that may have influenced her testimony at trial. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a Notice of Alibi, representing that his mother would testify that he was home the night of the shooting. His mother testified that at the time of the robbery, the defendant lived with her, that he returned to her apartment the night of the robbery at around 9:45 p.m., and that when she woke at approximately 1:00 a.m., she saw the defendant in his room sleeping. Like Senter's testimony, the defendant's mother's alibi testimony and credibility were critical given that the identity of the shooter was the contested issue at trial. See Beltran, 153 N.H. at 649-50, 904 A.2d 709. Her conversations with her son were probative of her bias and motive to lie about his whereabouts on the night of the shooting. During the three conversations admitted into evidence, the defendant threatened Senter. His mother listened to the threats and did not discourage him, she discussed Katie taking violent action against Senter, noted that, if Senter did not testify, the case would be thrown, and commented that she could not wait to see Senter at trial because that would be quite the interesting case. The defendant also argues that the prejudicial effect of these statements substantially outweighs their minimal probative value under the third prong of the Rule 404(b) analysis. For the reasons described above in our discussion of the threats in relation to Senter's credibility, we find that the defendant has failed to prove that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.