THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 95-440, State of NH v. David A. Ross, the court upon December 20, 1996, made the following order:

Motion for reconsideration is denied. The slip opinion dated November 7, 1996, is modified as follows:

1. The second full paragraph on page 3 of the slip opinion is modified by adding the following sentence and citation to the end of said paragraph:

We review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 836 (1992).

Thus, said paragraph as modified states as follows:

Rule 608(a) provides as follows:

(a) Opinion and reputation of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.

We note that New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 608(a) is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a). See Fed. R. Evid. 608(a). We will, therefore, look to cases interpreting the federal rule to guide us in this decision. See State v. Kiewert, 135 N.H. 338, 343, 605 A.2d 1031, 1034 (1992). At issue in this case is whether the State was justified in putting on opinion and reputation testimony as to the complainant's character for truthfulness under Rule 608(a)(2). The trial judge ruled that the defendant had "clearly attacked [the complainant's] credibility in cross-examination." The State argues that the trial court properly allowed the evidence because the defendant attacked the complainant's character by claiming that she fabricated a criminal charge for financial gain. We review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 836 (1992).

2. The first citation to United States v. Dring on page 4 of the slip opinion is modified as follows:

Dring, 930 F.2d at 690-91 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

Howard J. Zibel,

Clerk