Opinion ID: 2371832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Weapons and Ammunition in the Defendant's Truck

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of firearms, weapons and ammunition, not used in the charged crime, but seized from his truck. He contends that the seized items should not have been admitted because they were: (1) not used in the commission of the charged crime; (2) irrelevant and highly prejudicial; (3) inadmissible under New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403; and (4) barred as a matter of due process under the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions. As to the first issue, the State acknowledged that the items seized were not used in the charged crime. The trial court found the presence of weapons and ammunition in the defendant's truck relevant to the issue of the defendant's intent, irrespective of their use in the charged crime. Generally, we accord considerable deference to a trial court's evidentiary rulings and will only intervene when they demonstrate an unsustainable exercise of discretion. State v. Belton, 150 N.H. 741, 743, 846 A.2d 526 (2004). Unless a party establishes that such a ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the party's case, it will not be disturbed. Id. We agree that the weapons were relevant to an issue in dispute, and conclude that the fact that the items were not used in the charged crime, without more, does not establish that the trial court's ruling was untenable or unreasonable. The defendant next argues that that evidence was highly prejudicial, irrelevant and barred under Rules 403 and 404(b). Under Rule 404(b), [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. N.H.R. Ev. 404(b). It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Id. Evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) when it is relevant for a purpose other than proving the defendant's character or disposition, there is clear proof that the defendant committed the act, and the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudice to the defendant. State v. Watkins, 148 N.H. 760, 767, 813 A.2d 435 (2002). Because the first and third prongs of this test entail determinations of relevance and probative value versus prejudice, we need not separately address the defendant's other arguments. Id. Prior to the defendant's first trial, the trial court ruled that evidence of the weapons was relevant to the issue of the defendant's premeditation and deliberation because the amount of weaponry could support the theory that the defendant had planned and prepared for this violent act. The trial court affirmed that ruling prior to the second trial. Relevant evidence need only have a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Id. (quotation omitted). Evidence of numerous weapons in the defendant's truck could tend to show that he had planned and prepared to stage some type of violent act. Accordingly, the record supports the trial court's ruling that the presence of weapons in the defendant's truck was relevant for a purpose other than showing the defendant's character or disposition. Turning to the clear proof requirement, it is satisfied when the State presents evidence firmly establishing that the defendant, and not some other person, committed the prior act. State v. Berry, 148 N.H. 88, 92, 803 A.2d 593 (2002). The record reveals that the defendant did not below, and does not now, argue that the State did not meet its burden under the clear proof requirement. Thus, the issue is not before us. Regarding the third factor, the record supports the finding that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant. As noted by the trial court, the presence of numerous weapons in the defendant's truck was probative of his intent, plan or preparation to commit a violent act. Further, because the issue of the defendant's intent was central to the trial of this matter, the probative value was significant. Conversely, the prejudicial impact to the defendant was limited. The trial court admitted the evidence for the sole purpose of determining the defendant's intent and so instructed the jury. Because the jury is presumed to follow the instructions given by the trial court, see State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 348, 876 A.2d 712 (2005), any prejudice caused by the admission of the evidence of the firearms and ammunition was slight. In sum, because the record supports the admission of the evidence of the weapons and ammunition in the defendant's truck under Rule 404(b) we conclude that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion. Lastly, the defendant contends that admitting the evidence of weapons and ammunition violated his due process rights under the New Hampshire and Federal Constitutions. The defendant, however, does not explain how his rights were violated. He argues only in conclusory terms that the evidence should have been excluded as a matter of due process. Because, in the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review, see Blackmer, 149 N.H. at 49, 816 A.2d 1014, we decline to address the defendant's constitutional argument.