Supreme Court of New Hampshire

The State of New Hampshire v. George Brum

May 10, 2007155 N.H. 408

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for aggravated and misdemeanor sexual assault. It held that the trial court properly limited impeachment concerning the victim's prior sexual-assault allegation, excluded extrinsic evidence about that allegation, and permitted a constitutionally sufficient level of cross-examination. The court also declined to consider the defendant's new hearsay argument because it was not preserved below and found no plain error.

Holding

  • Cross-examination about the absence of charges after the 1996 report. The trial court acted within its discretion in prohibiting the defendant from asking whether charges were brought against the victim's co-worker because that fact was not probative of the victim's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
  • Exclusion of extrinsic evidence concerning the victim's prior allegations. The trial court properly excluded extrinsic evidence concerning both the 1996 allegations and the 2005 statement.
  • Constitutional adequacy of limits on cross-examination about discrepancies. The limits on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's rights under the State Confrontation Clause.
  • Preservation of the alternative non-hearsay argument. The court declined to consider the defendant's argument that his statement was admissible because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, because that argument was raised for the first time on appeal.

Docket 2006-086

Cited authorities

  • New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)
  • Rule 608(b)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF