Cited by

The State concedes, as it must, that reckless manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder.

Our cases also have made clear that, upon request, the prosecution is entitled to have a lesser-included offense considered over the objection of the defense if the evidence justifies it.

In contrast, the court treated reckless manslaughter as a lesser-included offense to murder.

This court has not found reversible error when a trial judge, over the defendant’s objection, instructs a jury on a lesser included offense if the evidence warrants it.

We have stated that it is proper to instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense when “the evidence furnishes a rational basis for a finding of guilt on the lesser offense but not on the greater offense.” State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 417, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979).

Our cases clarify that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense only “when a conviction as to the lesser offense would be compatible with the evidence at trial.” Nichols v. Helgemoe, 117 N.H. 57, 60, 369 A.2d 614, 617 (1977); see also State v. Berry, 124 N.H. 203, 206, 470 A.2d 881, 883 (1983); State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 417, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979).

When the defendant argues that this limitation on the relevance of voluntary intoxication to recklessness has no bearing on the application of the further element of acting “under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life,” see State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979), he poses the basic question of how that element functions in raising a reckless homicide charge from manslaughter to murder.

He argues first that it would have been helpful to give the instruction approved in State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979).

We approved a significant part of its language in State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979), and have since affirmed its propriety in State v. Dow, 126 N.H. 205, 207, 489 A.2d 650, 652 (1985).

State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 417, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979) (no contest rule inapposite when State requests such instruction, since State has burden of proof).

The existence and extent of disregard manifested is a factual determination to be made by the jury.” State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979) (quoting Report of Comm, to Recommend Codification of Criminal Laws, comments to § 575:2 (manslaughter) (1969)) (citations omitted).

The facts which were admitted by the defendant at the time of the plea certainly showed recklessness as well as an extreme indifference to the value of human life and supplied a factual basis for the plea.

“[T]he State is entitled to have the lesser included offense instruction submitted to the jury if the evidence justifies it.” State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979).

Negligent homicide is clearly a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and of manslaughter, see State v. Pugliese, 120 N.H. 728, 730, 422 A.2d 1319, 1321 (1980); State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 416, 402 A.2d 188, 191 (1979), and the State has conceded this point.

The “defendant’s testimony is completely exculpatory and, if believed, could only lead to acquittal.” United Staten v. Sinclair, 444 F.2d at 890; nee State v. Howland, 119 N.H. 413, 402 A.2d 188 (1979).