NH · rules
N.H. R. Ev. 613
Witness's Prior Statements
(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).
(c) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Consistent Statement for Rehabilitation. Except as provided in Rule 801(d)(1)(B) or (C), evidence of a prior consistent statement may be admitted only for rehabilitation:
(1) after the witness’s credibility has been attacked through the use of a prior inconsistent statement; and
(2) where the probative value of the prior consistent statement outweighs its prejudicial effect.
If a prior consistent statement is admitted for rehabilitation the court shall give a limiting instruction that the statement is not substantive evidence.
History
2016 NHRE Update Committee Note The amendments made by supreme court order dated April 20, 2017, effective July 1, 2017, made stylistic and substantive changes. The amendments made stylistic changes to subsections (a) and (b). Subsections (a) and (b) mirror Federal Rule of Evidence 613 (a) and (b). The amendments also added subsection (c), codifying the New Hampshire common law rule regarding the use of prior consistent statements for the purpose of rehabilitation. When a witness has been impeached by the use of prior inconsistent statements, New Hampshire common law “allows the admission of prior consistent statements for the purpose of rehabilitation. . . . The prior consistent statements, however, may not be used substantively, and a defendant is entitled to a limiting instruction to prevent unfair prejudice. Even when a witness’s credibility has been attacked through the use of prior inconsistent statements, however, the common law rule allowing admission of rehabilitative testimony should be used with caution.” State v. White, 159 N.H. 76, 79 (2009) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
Provenance
- Source
- www.courts.nh.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-17
- Edition
- 2026-09-16
- Content hash
005b39ecbd24e541b073ff70c701c485c8909e310eb3f1a6e0b2155724b62a52
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.