Opinion ID: 4514882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Challenged Evidence

Text: We first address whether the trial court erred in ruling that Rule 404(b) is not applicable to the challenged testimony that the defendant offered to orchestrate the murder of another suspected informant. “‘The proper test to apply in deciding the admissibility of “similar acts” or “other acts” evidence depends upon whether the evidence in question is “intrinsic” or “extrinsic” evidence.’” State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 551 (2013) (quoting United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir. 1990)) (noting that the applicable test for admissibility of intrinsic evidence is found in Rule 403). We review the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, and will reverse only if it was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case. State v. Nightingale, 160 N.H. 569, 573 (2010). At the time of the defendant’s trial, New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 404(b) provided: Evidence 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. 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. N.H. R. Ev. 404(b) (amended 2018); see State v. Plantamuro, 171 N.H. 253, 255 (2018). The rule, “‘by its very terms, excludes only extrinsic evidence — evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts — whose probative value exclusively depends upon a forbidden inference of criminal propensity.’” State v. Wells, 166 N.H. 73, 77 (2014) (quoting United States v. Epstein, 426 F.3d 431, 439 (1st Cir. 2005)). 8 “Other act” evidence is “intrinsic,” and therefore not subject to Rule 404(b), when the evidence of the other act and the evidence of the crime charged are “inextricably intertwined” or both acts are part of a “single criminal episode” or the other acts were “necessary preliminaries” to the crime charged. Id. “Intrinsic” or “inextricably intertwined” evidence will have a causal, temporal, or spatial connection with the charged crime. Id. (citing United States v. Hardy, 228 F.3d 745, 748 (6th Cir. 2000) (discussing “background evidence”)). “‘Typically, such evidence is a prelude to the charged offense, is directly probative of the charged offense, arises from the same events as the charged offense, forms an integral part of a witness’s testimony, or completes the story of the charged offense.’” Id. at 77-78 (quoting Hardy, 228 F.3d at 748); see United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689, 698 (6th Cir. 2012) (referring to this list — as quoted in Wells — as “[e]xamples of general categories that may satisfy the[] requirements” of intrinsic evidence). “This type of evidence is admissible under the rationale that ‘events do not occur in a vacuum, and the jury has a right to hear what occurred immediately prior to and subsequent to the commission of [the charged] act so that it may realistically evaluate the evidence.’” Wells, 166 N.H. at 78 (quoting Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (en banc) (explaining “same transaction contextual evidence”)). The defendant argues that J.M.’s testimony about his offer to have another suspected police informant killed “was entirely unrelated to the killing of [M.P.]” and that the admission of this evidence of other acts violated Rule 404(b). The State argues that the challenged testimony, as emphasized above, was admissible as intrinsic evidence because it was inextricably intertwined with the defendant’s admission to J.M. about what he was “going to be doing” in his case, and the challenged statements “provided necessary context” for his admission to J.M. about conspiring with and soliciting his associates to kill M.P. Here, any connection between the challenged statements and the charged offenses is too attenuated for that evidence of other acts to constitute evidence intrinsic to the charged offenses. Evidence that, for $1000, the defendant agreed to have his “boy[s] . . . take care of” another suspected police informant in a separate matter is not necessary to complete the story of the conspiracy to murder M.P. or the defendant’s liability as an accomplice to M.P.’s murder. Although these statements were made to J.M. in early November 2015, which bears an arguable “temporal connection” to the charged conspiracy and murder of M.P., without a sufficient underlying factual nexus, these statements are merely coincidental to the charged offenses. See Wells, 166 N.H. at 78 (evidence of uncharged act had a “close temporal connection” to the charged crime where the act “took place immediately prior to the charged act, provided the jury with a full account of a single [criminal episode], and enabled the jury to realistically evaluate [the victim’s] testimony”); Dion, 164 N.H. at 546-47, 550-51 (concluding that evidence of defendant’s cell phone use 9 during a thirty-seven minute car ride prior to a fatal collision with a pedestrian was intrinsic to the charged offense of negligent homicide). Importantly, the defendant’s apparent willingness to facilitate the murder of another, unrelated, suspected “snitch” was not “part of the same criminal episode” or at all part of a sequence of events leading to the charged conspiracy to murder M.P. or his subsequent murder. See Wells, 166 N.H. at 77 (concluding Rule 404(b) did not apply “because the . . . testimony was admissible evidence of a single criminal episode”); Nightingale, 160 N.H. at 574 (emphasizing that “[t]he conversations at issue and the crime charged in the indictment [were] part of a single criminal episode” in concluding Rule 404(b) did not apply (quotation omitted)); State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 517-18 (1994) (explaining that Rule 404(b) did not apply to threats defendant made to victim because the threats “were a material part of the entire course of conduct surrounding the commission of the alleged [aggravated felonious sexual assaults]”). Although evidence that “forms an integral part of a witness’s testimony” about the charged offense(s) may also suggest that said evidence is intrinsic, Wells, 166 N.H. at 77-78 (quotation omitted), here the challenged statements fall short of forming an integral part of J.M.’s testimony that the defendant admitted he was going to kill the “snitch” in his case. See id. at 77; Clay, 667 F.3d at 698. Absent the challenged statements, J.M.’s testimony details the defendant’s advice to her on how to handle her ex-fiancé’s “snitch” problem — by “do[ing] just what [he’s] going to do. . . . [N]o snitch, no case, or no body, no case.” We are not persuaded that removing the challenged statements renders J.M.’s testimony unintelligible or creates a vacuum in the story of the charged crimes. See Wells, 166 N.H. at 78; Clay, 667 F.3d at 698 (explaining that evidence was not intrinsic where “it [was] a completely separate and distinct offense that is not essential for providing a coherent and intelligible description of the charged offense” (quotation omitted)); 1 George Dix et al., McCormick on Evidence § 190, at 754 (6th ed. 2006)). Contrary to the State’s position, it is not enough that the challenged statements about the defendant’s offer to kill another suspected police informant added “probative force” to J.M.’s testimony; the statements were not necessary or essential to enable the jury to “realistically evaluate her testimony” about the charged offenses — that the defendant was admitting he was going to kill the “snitch” in his own case. Wells, 166 N.H. at 77-78; see Clay, 667 F.3d at 698; 29A Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 876, at 175 (2008) (“Other criminal act evidence admissible as part of the res gestae or same transaction introduced for the purpose of explaining the crime charged must be confined to that which is reasonably necessary to accomplish such purpose.” (emphasis added)). The challenged statements do not have a sufficient connection to the remainder of the defendant’s admissions to J.M. such that they formed an “integral” part of her testimony. See Hardy, 228 F.3d at 748 (“[T]he ‘background circumstances exception’ to the general exclusion of other act evidence is not an open ended basis to admit any and all other act 10 evidence the proponent wishes to introduce. Rather the very definition of what constitutes background evidence contains inherent limitations.”); Clay, 667 F.3d at 698 (noting that the intrinsic evidence exception to Rule 404(b) “contains severe limitations”). The State’s argument that, without the challenged testimony, it would be unclear why the defendant “made an admission to murder out of the blue and with no reason, to a person with whom he rarely interacted and to whom he seldom spoke,” is also insufficient to allow J.M.’s testimony about the defendant’s offer to arrange the killing of another, unrelated, suspected informant to permissibly escape the requirements of Rule 404(b). See State v. Melcher, 140 N.H. 823, 829-30 (1996) (applying Rule 404(b) to testimony about the relationship between defendant and victim and rejecting the trial court’s finding that such testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) because “the relationship ultimately made it ‘unlikely that the act would occur out of the blue’”); United States v. Gibbs, 797 F.3d 416, 424 (6th Cir. 2015) (rejecting the government’s argument that evidence of other acts was intrinsic because, without the evidence, “it might be unclear why [witnesses] came forward”). To the extent the State argues that Rule 404(b) does not apply to the challenged testimony because it constitutes a statement of a party opponent, we disagree. The mere fact that a witness’s testimony constitutes statements by a party opponent, i.e., “admissions,” does not implicate the intrinsic evidence doctrine. See State v. Pepin, 156 N.H. 269, 275-79 (2007) (analyzing a verbal threat under Rule 404(b)); State v. Richardson, 138 N.H. 162, 164-68 (1993) (analyzing defendant’s collective statements and behavior shortly before and after the charged offense under Rule 404(b)); People v. Ventimiglia, 420 N.E.2d 59, 63 (N.Y. 1981) (clarifying that the admissibility of “inextricably interwoven” evidence “does not make evidence admissible simply because it is a part of [a] conversation other parts of which are admissible”). An out of court statement is not admissible merely because it is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) — it must also pass muster under the other rules of evidence. State v. Belonga, 163 N.H. 343, 359 (2012); see United States v. Oberle, 136 F.3d 1414, 1418 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Although the statements are party admissions . . . and thus not hearsay, they must nevertheless also be analyzed for admissibility under Rule 404(b) because they reveal or suggest prior criminal conduct.”). In analyzing the applicability of the intrinsic evidence exception to Rule 404(b), we must remain mindful of the purpose of Rule 404(b), which is to “ensure that the defendant is tried on the merits of the crime as charged and to prevent a conviction based upon evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Beltran, 153 N.H. 643, 647 (2006). The intrinsic evidence exception “cannot serve as a backdoor to circumvent” this purpose. Gibbs, 797 F.3d at 423 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Crosby, 142 N.H. 134, 138 (1997) (“The State may not employ a trial strategy of introducing evidence which itself 11 creates the necessity for admitting bad acts evidence.”). Here, in deciding whether to convict the defendant for conspiring to murder M.P. and for his role as an accomplice to M.P.’s murder, the jury was permitted to consider evidence that the defendant offered to orchestrate the killing of another, unrelated, suspected police informant. Because this evidence of other acts was not intrinsic to the charged offenses, the proper rule governing the statements’ admissibility is Rule 404(b). See Dion, 164 N.H. at 551. Therefore, the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion in concluding that Rule 404(b) did not apply.1