State of New Hampshire v. Adam Wells

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding Rule 404(b) did not apply “because the . . . testimony was admissible evidence of a single criminal episode”
• reasoning that the challenged testimony “described an act that was inextricably intertwined with the charged offense because the acts were ‘part of a single criminal episode,’” and the evidence “was necessary to complete the story of the charged sexual intercourse” (citation omitted)
• “A mistrial is appropriate when the circumstances indicate that justice may not be done if the trial continues to a verdict.” (quotation omitted)
• 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”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).