## Facts

- Michael A. Scarlett was tried in New Hampshire Superior Court for aggravated felonious sexual assault involving a minor.
- The State’s theory placed the assault on Scarlett’s bed.
- At trial, the prosecutor displayed to the jury a photograph of a bedspread taken from Scarlett’s bed that appeared blood-stained and elicited testimony about it.
- No chemist or other qualified witness was presented to establish that the stains were blood, and the prosecutor knew the exhibit would be inadmissible without such foundational testimony and did not intend to call the necessary witness.
- Defense counsel objected to the evidence; the court allowed the display and testimony on the assumption a foundation would later be supplied.
- After the State rested without laying a foundation, the defense moved for a mistrial.
- The trial court denied the mistrial, struck the bedspread-related testimony, and instructed the jury to disregard the photograph and testimony.
- The jury convicted Scarlett, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying a mistrial after the prosecutor knowingly displayed to the jury a highly prejudicial exhibit lacking required foundation, and then relying on a curative instruction after the State failed to cure the foundational defect.
2. Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s exposure to the inadmissible bedspread evidence did not affect the verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court should have granted a mistrial because the State overreached by presenting the bedspread evidence to the jury while knowing it would be inadmissible without expert foundation the State did not intend to provide.
- The court concluded the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper display and related testimony did not affect the verdict.
- The curative measures (striking the evidence and instructing the jury to disregard it) were insufficient under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- When a jury is exposed to inadmissible evidence, the State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
- A mistrial is required when prejudicial, inadmissible evidence has been placed before the jury in a manner that cannot be reliably cured by later striking the evidence and giving limiting instructions.
- Prosecutorial overreaching includes knowingly placing before the jury evidence the prosecutor understands is inadmissible absent foundational proof the prosecutor does not intend to present.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecutor knowingly displayed an inadmissible, highly prejudicial “blood-stained” bedspread exhibit without the necessary foundation, and the State did not carry its burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless despite the trial court’s curative instruction.


State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 395 A.2d 1244 (N.H. 1978)