the State’s request to take a recess, nor in refusing to exclude the victim’s post-recess testimony. There was nothing substantively different from her testimony pri- or to the recess. The State was obviously successful in its attempt to calm down and relax the victim, the very purpose for which the court granted the State’s request for a recess. V. Judicial Misconduct We have reviewed Roman’s contentions that the trial court acted in a prejudicial manner, depriving him of his constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair trial. Roman’s claims in some instances are unfounded. Other contentions concerning the court’s pr lding evidence of past uncharged instances of offensive conduct admissible to show intent and relationship); State v. Young, 560 A.2d 1095, 1096 (Me.1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ouellette, 544 A.2d 761, 763
holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim holding prior instances of domestic assault admissible to show the nature of the parties relationship and explain what might otherwise appear to be incongruous behavior to a jury such as remaining with an abusive partner and delaying a report of abuse holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim