Peet v. Spencer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the victim’s testimony about a pornographic video did not eliminate the probative value of playing the video for the jury in order to convey its graphic nature
• affirming decision to allow display of pornographic video, in part, because it was brief and the jury had already heard the victim’s testimony about the video
• rejecting double jeopardy assertion where defendant was convicted once pursuant to RSA 632-A:2, I(l) (1996) and sentenced once under RSA 651:6, I(f), II(a) (1996)
• harmless error where the State did not “call particular attention to [the disputed evidence] in closing argument”
• fact that prosecutor did not specifically mention evidence in closing argument contributed to determination that its admission was harmless
• admission of other bad acts harmless where, inter alia, they “bore no similarity to the charged sexual acts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).