Cited by

Thus, while the defendant’s decision to proceed pro se may have been to his detriment, see State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86 (1981), it was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Although the anxiety presumed to attend criminal charges is not to be ignored, Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, it does not reach a level of great importance when the defendant is unable to show that he has suffered actual prejudice.

United States v. Churchill, 483 F.2d 268, 273 (1st Cir. 1973) (silence throughout period of delay, along with evidence defendant not prepared for trial, indicates defendant not averse to it); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86-87, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981).

In most instances, however, the most that is required is that the defendant act “knowingly,” Model Penal Code and Commentaries, supra, that is, that he “be aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause a prohibited result.” State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981).

State v. Mayo, 125 N.H. 200, *527 203, 480 A.2d 85, 87 (1984); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981).

State v. Dufield, 119 N.H. 28, 30, 398 A.2d 818, 819 (1979) (failure to assert weighed against defendant); cf. State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981) (failure to assert would not generally be held against uncounselled defendant).

State v. Sullivan, 121 N.H. 301, 303, 428 A.2d 1247 -49 (1981); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 87, 427 A.2d 3, 5-6 (1981); State v. Godin, *411 124 N.H. 781, 783, 474 A.2d 580, 581 (1984).

State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981) (“Jury nullification is an historical prerogative of the jury; it is not a right of the defendant.”).

Although the length of time prior to trial is never alone dispositive of a speedy trial claim, see State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981) (thirteen-month delay); see also Barker v. Wingo, supra at 523 (five-year delay), the superior court follows a policy of inquiring into the reasons for delay whenever a felony case remains untried nine months after indictment, State v. Perron, 122 N.H. 941, 951, 454 A.2d 422, 428 (1982), an

“If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006 (4th Cir. 1969), cert.

“In order to determine whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, we must balance four factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted his right, and (4) any prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972)).

Furthermore, most “defendants could *637 better defend with counsel’s guidance than by their own unskilled efforts,” Faretta, supra at 834, so that “the choice to conduct [their] own defense may be to [their] detriment.” State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981).

State v. Mayo, 125 N.H. 200, 203, 480 A.2d 85, 87 (1984); State v. Preston, 122 N.H. 153, 161, 442 A.2d 992, 996 (1982); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89-90, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981).

However, in State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981), this court enunciated the rule that “[j]ury nullification is an historical prerogative of the jury; it is not a right of the defendant.” See State v. Mayo, 125 N.H. 200, 480 A.2d 85 (1984) (jury nullification is neither a right of the defendant nor a defense recognized by law).

Jury nullification, as we noted in State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981) is “an historical prerogative of the jury.” “This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge.

State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981) (thirteen-month delay in misdemeanor case requires further examination).

State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 91, 427 A.2d 3, 8 (1981).

State v. Perron, 122 N.H. 941, 950, 454 A.2d 422, 427 (1982); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972).

State v. Danskin, 122 N.H. 817, 819, 451 A.2d 396, 398 (1982); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 87-88, 427 A.2d 3, 6 (1981).

See, e.g., State v. Quinlan, 122 N.H. 51, 52, 440 A.2d 13, 14 (1982); State v. Little, 121 N.H. 765, 773, 435 A.2d 517, 521 (1981); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981).

State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86-87, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981); cf. Austin v. Ellis, 119 N.H. 741, 743, 408 A.2d 784, 785 (1979).

Although we are of the opinion that this may be an instruction best given only when it is requested by a defendant or when the nature of a particular case otherwise warrants it, in State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89-90, 427 A.2d 3, 7 (1981), we upheld an identical jury instruction, noting specifically that “[j]ury nullification is an historical prerogative of the jury.

See, e.g., State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86-87, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981); State v. White, 116 N.H. 687, 688-89, 366 A.2d 872, 873-74 (1976).

Reversal is unwarranted when a jury charge, as a whole, fairly covers the issues and law of a case.

State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 89, 427 A.2d 3, 6-7 (1981); cf. State v. Koski, 120 N.H. 112, 114, 411 A.2d 1122, 1123 (1980).

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 86, 427 A.2d 3, 5 (1981).

This approach, however, could at some point raise constitutional questions regarding a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.