Cited by
Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Bacon, 319 A.2d 636.
-
State v. Larose
944 A.2d 566
N.H. 2008
The general purpose of the affirmative defense of entrapment “is to prevent a defendant from being convicted of a crime manufactured by law enforcement officers.” State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 308 (1974).
-
State v. Gelinas
790 A.2d 138
N.H. 2002
In general, the purpose of the affirmative defense of entrapment “is to prevent a defendant from being convicted of a crime manufactured by law enforcement officers.” State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 308 (1974) (emphasis added).
-
State v. Bureau
589 A.2d 1013
N.H. 1991
In the context of closing argument, a prosecutor may “draw[ ] reasonable inferences from the evidence which [do] not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy.” State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 750, 367 A.2d 1320, 1333 (1976) (citing State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 310, 319 A.2d 636, 640 (1974)).
-
State v. Sands
467 A.2d 202
N.H. 1983
RSA 641:2; see also State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 310, 319 A.2d 636, 639 (1974); 4 Wharton's Criminal Proce *595 dure § 545, at 28-29 (12th ed. C. Torcia 1976); 2 New Hampshire Practice, Criminal Practice & Procedure § 818, at 35 (R. McNamara 1980).
-
State v. Little
435 A.2d 517
N.H. 1981
The entrapment defense is designed to prevent persons from being convicted of a crime manufactured by law enforcement officers.
-
State v. Boone
406 A.2d 113
N.H. 1979
State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 310, 319 A.2d 636, 639 (1974); United States v. Sinclair, 444 F.2d at 890.
-
State v. Linsky
379 A.2d 813
N.H. 1977
Nor can we hold that there was entrapment as a matter of law.
-
State v. Pelillo
377 A.2d 615
N.H. 1977
State v. Stone, 114 N.H. 114, 316 A.2d 196 (1974); State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 319 A.2d 636 (1974).
-
State v. Breest
367 A.2d 1320
N.H. 1976
On the contrary, he was drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence which did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy.
-
State v. Gaiolas
356 A.2d 695
N.H. 1976
if you have any *218 oubt still, to go even further look at the facts that came out during his trial.” The fact that an inference is stated in a positive fashion oes not constitute testifying by the prosecutor nor does he thereby furnish the jury with information of his own knowledge.
-
State v. Caldrain
342 A.2d 628
N.H. 1975
State v. O’Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 317 A.2d 783 (1974); State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 319 A.2d 636 (1974).
-
State v. Bergeron
333 A.2d 721
N.H. 1975
State v. O’Brien, 114 N.H. 233, 235-36, 317 A.2d 783, 784-85 (1974); State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 310, 319 A.2d 636, 639 (1974); 5 F. Wharton, Criminal Procedure § 2099, at 268 (R. Anderson ed. *74 1957) (Supp. 1974, at 161); see Remington and Joseph, Charging, Convicting and Sentencing The Multiple Criminal Defendant, 1961 Wis.
-
State v. Dunphy
328 A.2d 787
N.H. 1974
Defendant contends that State v. Bacon, 114 N.H. 306, 310, 319 A.2d 636, 639-40 (1974), holds that possession cannot be a lesser offense included in the offense of sale.