New Hampshire
How Bourjaily v. United States applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Evidence.
New Hampshire law follows a similar approach to the federal model regarding the admission of hearsay statements and the principles surrounding coconspirator statements. Specifically, New Hampshire courts allow the admission of such evidence if the prosecution can establish a prima facie case that a conspiracy exists.
New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) permits the admission of statements made by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy as an exception to the hearsay rule, mirroring the ruling in Bourjaily.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the admission of a coconspirator's statement, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a conspiracy before such statements are admitted.
The court ruled that statements made during the course of a conspiracy are admissible if there is independent evidence showing the existence of the conspiracy.
This case clarified the requirement that the prosecution must show a prima facie case of conspiracy before coconspirator statements can be considered for admission.
New Hampshire's approach largely parallels the federal standard in Bourjaily v. United States, which allows for the admission of coconspirator statements based on a prima facie showing of conspiracy. However, New Hampshire courts may place a slightly greater emphasis on the necessity of independent evidence to establish that conspiracy before admitting such statements.
Questions regarding the admission of hearsay and coconspirator statements, as established by New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), are relevant for the New Hampshire bar exam.