Cited by

at the trial court properly concluded that “the victim had withdrawn from the combat.” [¶14] “Although the scope and wording of jury instructions is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court, the court must grant a defendant’s requested jury instruction on a specific defense if there is some evidence to support a rational finding in favor of that defense.” State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 9 (2001) (quotation omitted).

Bertrand, 123 N.H. at 728; see State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 8 (2001) (stating that when “a defendant establishes a prima facie case of incompetency through the introduction of uncontroverted expert testimony, the trial court should delineate its reasons for rejecting that testimony and those reasons must be supported by the record”).

To the extent that, as the State contends, this testimony can be construed as contradicting other testimony supporting the self-defense instruction, any inconsistency was for the jury to reconcile, not the trial court.

State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 6 (2001); see also Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1966).

The trial court may not abdicate to psychiatrists its judicial responsibility to determine a defendant’s competency.

“The two-pronged test for competency requires that a defendant have: (1) a sufficient present ability to consult with and assist his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and (2) a factual as well as rational understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id.; see Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. *795 402 (1960); State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 6 (2001).

“The mental competence of a criminal defendant at the time of trial is an absolute basic condition of a fair trial.” State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 6 (2001) (quotation omitted).

onclusory and self-serving statements, standing alone, will not suffice,” United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 1986), “a defendant’s account, though self-serving, may have weight if it is interlaced with considerable detail and has some circumstantial corroboration in the record.” United States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted); see State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 9-11 (2001) (court erred by not giving requested instruction on self-defense even though

“Although the scope and wording of jury instructions is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court, the court must grant a defendant’s requested jury instruction on a specific defense if there is some evidence to support a rational finding in favor of that defense.” State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 9 (2001) (quotation omitted).

“Some evidence” means something “more than a minutia or *227 scintilla of evidence.” State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 9 (2001) (quotation omitted).

“The State bears the burden of proving both of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 6 (2001).

State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 6 (2001); see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).

State v. Haycock, 146 N.H. 5, 8 (2001) (noting that the superior court should not abdicate its judicial responsibility to determine whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial).