Cited by

The defendant likens this case to State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820 (1984).

State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823-24 (1984) (reversing a conviction based on conclusion that error was not harmless where a prosecutor’s “improper comment went directly to” credibility and “[i]t would be virtually impossible to determine the degree to which the jury may have been influenced by” it).

Although counsel is afforded wide latitude during closing argument, it is well settled that counsel may not argue facts that have not been introduced into evidence.

To establish prosecutorial overreaching, the defendant must show that the government, through gross negligence or intentional misconduct, caused aggravated circumstances to develop that severely prejudiced the defendant.

State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 822, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984) (prosecutor may not argue facts not in evidence).

While counsel is afforded wide latitude in making closing arguments, counsel cannot argue facts that were not introduced into evidence.

State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1984); cf. Border Brook Terrace Condo.

Cook, 125 N.H. at 455, 481 A.2d at 826; see State v. Jacobson, 125 N.H. 838, 838, 485 A.2d 1048, 1048 (1984).

He argues that “[t]he State’s deliberate decision to proceed to trial on wholly unsupported allegations seriously prejudiced [him].” “In order for there to be prosecutorial overreaching, the government must have, through gross negligence or intentional misconduct, caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant....” State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984).

Outside the mistrial context, we have also reversed a verdict where an attorney’s closing statement included assertions of crucial facts not in evidence, see State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 822-23, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984), although our decision depended in large part on the trial judge’s failure to give curative instructions, id.

“[I]t is well settled that counsel may not argue facts that have not been introduced into evidence.” State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 822, 485 A.2d 1048,1050 (1984).

To constitute prosecutorial overreaching, “the government must have, through gross negligence or intentional misconduct, caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant, causing him reasonably to conclude that continuation of the tainted proceeding would result in his conviction.” State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984).

The training I received in the Army as a forward observer involves particularly that particular skill.” Clearly, this statement asserted facts not in evidence, see State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 822, 485 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1984), and this portion of the State’s closing argument was improper.

at 4, 532 A.2d at 1386 (quoting State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984)).

rosecutorial overreaching, the government must have, through gross negligence or intentional misconduct, caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant, causing [the defendant] reasonably to conclude that continuation of the tainted proceeding would result in his conviction.’” State v. Bujnowski, 130 N.H. 1, 4, 532 A.2d 1385, 1386 (1987) (quoting State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984)).

at 4, 532 A.2d at 1386 (quoting State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984)).

In order for the court to find “prosecutorial overreaching, the government must have, through gross negligence or intentional misconduct, caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant, causing [the defendant] reasonably to conclude that continuation of the tainted proceeding would result in his conviction.” State v. Lake, 125 N.H. 820, 823, 485 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1984).