Skip to main content

State v. Lemieux

Citations

  • 136 N.H. 329
  • 615 A.2d 635
  • 1992 N.H. LEXIS 171

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that testimony was “merely cumulative” because “even if the testimony at issue had been excluded, the jury would nonetheless have had the witness’s opinion before it”
  • reasoning that the challenged testimony “was not directed to a specific inconsistency in the victim’s testimony in an effort to explain it”
  • explaining that “the evidence most damaging to the defendant was the victim’s description, in vivid detail, of the various sexual acts that the defendant forced her to perform on a regular basis”
  • when viewed next to “the victim’s description, in vivid detail, of the various sexual acts that the defendant forced her to perform” the improperly admitted evidence was inconsequential
  • erroneous admission of hearsay harmless where merely cumulative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Batchelder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.