For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if... [it] involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. N.H. R. Ev. 609(a) (amended 2007). When interpreting a rule of evidence — as with a statute or administrative rule — we will first look to the plain meaning of the words. Cf. Vector Mktg. Corp., 156 N.H. at 783 (administrative rule); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Victoria, 153 N.H. 664, 666 (2006) (statute). Where language is ambiguous, or where more than one reasonable interpretation exists, we will look to the rule’s history to aid in our interpretation, consistent with New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 102. Cf. Appeal ofRouthier, 143 N.H. 404,406 (1999) (interpreting an Ct. 1988) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 562 A.2d 824 (Pa. 1989), the
holding receiving stolen property is crimen falsi holding receiving stolen property is per se dishonest holding that exclusive possession of recently stolen goods warrants the inference that he stole all of the property for which the defendant is accused of taking provided all the property was stolen at the same time emphasis added holding that a conviction for receiving stolen property based on possession must be vacated because it involved the same act constituting theft based on retaining property holding that receiving stolen property is not automatically a crime of dishonesty for purposes of rule 609a2