Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wamalagreen2 sentences2020Barr, 172 N.H. at 693-94 (explaining that both subsidiary doctrines facilitate the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence); State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583, 591 (2009) (“[T]o the extent that the defendant argues that the opening-the-door doctrine does not allow the admission of hearsay evidence, he is mistaken. 2010The defendant confuses the “specific contradiction” branch of the opening the door doctrine, see State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583, 589 (2009), with Rule 608(b). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Nightingalegreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Nightingale, 160 N.H. 569, 579-80 (2010) (discussing the specific contradiction doctrine and whether rebuttal evidence specifically contradicted the admitted evidence). 9 The defendant asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce the nurse’s testimony because it exceeded the scope of the “open door.” In ruling that the defense opened the door, the trial court explicitly stated that the nurse’s testimony “is only admissible to the extent necessary to rebut the unfair advantage gained” and that she could “testify about this issue of how likely or unli 2020See Barr, 172 N.H. at 692-93; State v. Nightingale, 160 N.H. 569, 579-80 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
State of New Hampshire v. William Gaudetgreen2 sentences2023State v. Gaudet, 166 N.H. 390, 396 (2014). 2020State v. Gaudet, 166 N.H. 390, 396 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Trempegreen2 sentences2017See Trempe , 140 N.H. at 99 , 663 A.2d 620 (addressing the admission of prior bad act evidence pursuant to the opening the door doctrine); see also N.H. 2017See Trempe, 140 N.H. at 99 (addressing the admission of prior bad act evidence pursuant to the opening the door doctrine); see also N.H. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Benoitgreen2 sentences1994Because we find no error in the trial court’s application of the opening-the-door doctrine, see Crosman, 125 N.H. at 531 , 484 A.2d at 1097-98 ; State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21-22 , 490 A.2d 295, 305-06 (1985), we reject the defendant’s argument that Officer Kace should not have been allowed to testify. 1994Because we find no error in the trial court’s application of the opening-the-door doctrine, see Crosman, 125 N.H. at 531 , 484 A.2d at 1097-98 ; State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21-22 , 490 A.2d 295, 305-06 (1985), we reject the defendant’s argument that Officer Kace should not have been allowed to testify. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Morrillgreen2 sentences2019We therefore take the opportunity to reaffirm what we stated in Morrill: “To prevent confusion that might arise from the use of the term, when a party uses the term ‘opening the door’ or its equivalent as justifying the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, the party should make clear which of the above doctrines is being invoked.” Morrill, 154 N.H. at 550 . 2009State v. Morrill, 154 N.H. 547, 549-50 (2006). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2020Because an opening statement is not itself evidence, State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516 (1994), when applying the opening-the-door doctrine to opening statements, the precise question becomes whether the opening statement, by referencing anticipated evidence, opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cannongreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., id. at 141, 147-48; State v. Cannon, 146 N.H. 562, 563, 564-66 (2001); see also Nightingale, 160 N.H. at 580 (holding trial court reasonably could have found that defense counsel’s opening statement created a misleading impression and that the rebuttal evidence at issue “was necessary to counter this misleading impression”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abraham DePaulagreen1 sentence2019See State v. DePaula, 170 N.H. 139, 146 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Shawnya Jones v. Southern Pacific Railroadgreen1 sentence2016See id. at 665; see also Jones v. Southern Pacific R.R., 962 F.2d 447, 450 (5th Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2003“For the opening-the-door doctrine to apply, the testimony at issue must have created a misimpression.” Goodman, 145 N.H. at 529 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carlsongreen1 sentence2003The trial court disagreed. ‘The opening-the-door doctrine allows a party to use previously suppressed or otherwise inadmissible evidence to counter a misleading advantage created by the opponent.” State v. Carlson, 146 N.H. 52, 56 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bouchardgreen1 sentence2001See Bouchard, 138 N.H. at 584 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weeksgreen2 sentences2000“For the opening-the-door doctrine to apply, the testimony at issue must have created a misimpression.” State v. Weeks, 140 N.H. 463, 468 , 667 A.2d 1032, 1036 (1995). 2000“For the opening-the-door doctrine to apply, the testimony at issue must have created a misimpression.” State v. Weeks, 140 N.H. 463, 468 , 667 A.2d 1032, 1036 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Norgrengreen2 sentences1995See Norgren, 136 N.H. at 401-02 , 616 A.2d at 507 . 1995See Norgren, 136 N.H. at 401-02 , 616 A.2d at 507 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). 1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Judkinsgreen2 sentences1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). 1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stetsongreen2 sentences1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). 1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). 1993See State v. Stetson, 135 N.H. 267, 269 , 603 A.2d 498, 499 (1992) (defendant gained misleading advantage when hearsay evidence admitted into evidence); see also State v. Judkins, 128 N.H. 223, 225 , 512 A.2d 427, 428-29 (1986); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21 , 490 A.2d 295, 305 (1985); State v. Brown, 125 N.H. 346, 351-52 , 480 A.2d 901, 905-06 (1984); State v. Butler, 117 N.H. 888, 891-92 , 379 A.2d 827, 829-30 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vandebogart
green
1 sentence2016We said that, with regard to the opening-the-door doctrine, we saw “no reason to distinguish the defendant’s statements on direct examination from his responses to questions asked on cross-examination.” Id. at 167 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Jose Luis Castillo
green
1 sentence2016By contrast, in other jurisdictions the opening-the-door exception may be applied to a witness’s cross-examination testimony when that testimony is “truly volunteered.” Castillo, 181 F.3d at 1134 n.1. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. White
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 124 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Crosman
green
2 sentences1994Because we find no error in the trial court’s application of the opening-the-door doctrine, see Crosman, 125 N.H. at 531 , 484 A.2d at 1097-98 ; State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21-22 , 490 A.2d 295, 305-06 (1985), we reject the defendant’s argument that Officer Kace should not have been allowed to testify. 1994Because we find no error in the trial court’s application of the opening-the-door doctrine, see Crosman, 125 N.H. at 531 , 484 A.2d at 1097-98 ; State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 21-22 , 490 A.2d 295, 305-06 (1985), we reject the defendant’s argument that Officer Kace should not have been allowed to testify. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.