Cited by

State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 372 (1999) (upholding trial court determination 4 regarding witness recollection considering testimony as a whole, not in isolation).

see State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 374 (1999) (preservation of objection to closing argument requires specific objection to be raised at the time of improper statement or within a reasonable time thereafter).

at 48; accord State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 379 (1999).

State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 375 (1999) (challenged prosecutorial remarks were akin to a legal argument and were a permissible response to the defense counsel’s closing argument); State v. Boetti, 142 N.H. 255, 262 (1997) (trial court has latitude to permit counsel to respond to opposing counsel’s closing argument); see also United States v. Rob

State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 372 (1999); see also N.H. R. Ev.

State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 375 (1999) (challenged prosecutorial remarks were akin to a legal argument and were a permissible response to the defendant’s closing argument); State v. Boetti, 142 N.H. 255, 262 (1997) (trial court has latitude to permit counsel to respond to opposing counsel’s closing argument); see also United States v. Robinson

While a prosecutor may ordinarily use a closing argument to respond to defense counsel’s closing arguments and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence, see Ainsworth, 151 N.H. at 698-99; State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 374 (1999), the court’s order in this case specifically prohibited the prosecutor’s argument.

order was properly entered.” State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 379 (1999) (quotation omitted).

Given the State’s position, we assume, for purposes of this case only, that the right to counsel at probation revocation proceedings is coextensive with the right to counsel at criminal trials under the Sixth Amendment.

“To preserve an objection to closing arguments, counsel must raise it at the time the alleged improper statement is made, or within a reasonable time thereafter.” State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 374 (1999) (quotation omitted).

“Some evidence” is more than a “minutia or scintilla of evidence.” State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 378 (1999).

We will not reverse a trial court decision, however, when it reaches the correct result and valid alternative grounds exist to reach that result.

“Some evidence” is more than a “minutia or scintilla of evidence.” State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 378 (1999) (quotation omitted).

By “some evidence,” we mean that there must be more than a “minutia or scintilla of evidence.” State v. Cote, 143 N.H. 368, 378 (1999) (quotation omitted).

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of accident only if there is some evidence to support a rational finding in favor of that defense.