Cited by

He told the jury that it would not hear truthful testimony from Kayla and that “[t]he only reason she has to lie and 1 While based loosely on State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179 (2004), the term “Zwicker letter” has come to have a colloquial meaning in New Hampshire criminal practice.

To establish probable cause, the affiant need only present the magistrate with sufficient facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the evidence or contraband sought will be found in the place to be searched.

When prosecutorial overreach is intended to goad a defendant into requesting a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a retrial.

Work product is the result of an attorney’s activities 7 when those activities have been conducted with a view to pending or anticipated litigation.

Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution requires that all search warrants be issued only upon a finding of probable cause.

“At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 191 (2004) (quotation omitted).

Nevertheless, “[w]e assign great deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, and do not invalidate a warrant by interpreting the evidence submitted in a hypertechnical sense.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 185 (2004).

“To establish probable cause, the affiant need only present the magistrate with sufficient facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the evidence or contraband sought will be found in the place to be searched.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 185 (2004).

“At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 191 (2004) (quotation omitted).

State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 186 (2004); see also State v. Copeland, 124 N.H. 90, 92 (1983).

Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution requires that search warrants be issued only upon a finding of probable cause.

Part I, Article 19 requires that search warrants be issued only upon a finding of probable cause.

The State also must intend “to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Marti, 147 N.H. at 172 (quotation omitted); see State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 188 (2004) (holding that prosecutor’s question which elicited reference to defendant’s inadmissible criminal record was not intended to provoke the defendant into seeking a mistrial and did not bar retrial).

“To establish probable cause, the affiant need only present the magistrate with sufficient facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the evidence or contraband sought will be found in the place to be searched.” State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 185 (2004).

We review the trial court’s order de novo, except with respect to any controlling factual findings.

State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 185-86 (2004) (explaining that the court assigns great deference to a magistrate’s determination of probable cause and interprets affidavits in support of search warrants realistically and with common sense).

Second, he argues that the New Hampshire Constitution provides him more protection than the Federal Constitution such that, even if the prosecutor did not intentionally provoke a mistrial, her conduct amounted to “gross negligence.” He contends that under State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179, 188 (2004), prosecutorial “gross negligence” that leads to a mistrial bars retrial under principles of double jeopardy.

*349 A trial court is under no obligation to answer a jury’s question with the specific language requested by a defendant; it is within the trial court’s discretion to decide how best to aid the jury in its deliberations.