Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the prosecutor’s improper closing argument attacking defense counsel was not adequately cured by the trial court’s instruction. The court reversed the defendant’s convictions for arson, insurance fraud, and reckless conduct and remanded for a new trial. It also held that the State’s loss of charcoal-strip evidence did not violate due process because the loss was not shown to result from culpable negligence and the defendant did not establish materiality and prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's curative instruction adequately remedied the prosecutor's improper closing argument attacking defense counsel.
- Whether the State's loss of charcoal-strip samples violated Dowdle's due process rights and required exclusion of the State's forensic test results.
Holdings
- The prosecutor's closing argument improperly attacked defense counsel, and the trial court's equivocal instruction was not responsive to the comments or sufficient to cure the resulting prejudice. The inadequate curative instruction constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
- The State's unexplained loss of charcoal-strip samples did not violate Dowdle's due process rights because the State established that it acted in good faith and without culpable negligence, and Dowdle did not challenge the trial court's finding that materiality and prejudice were speculative.
Key quotations
“The prosecutor’s comments were improper and inexcusable.” (148 N.H. at 348)
“The prosecutor’s argument constituted a personal attack on defense counsel. It impugned their integrity and demeaned their ethics.” (148 N.H. at 348)
“The instruction given by the trial judge was not responsive to the prosecutor’s comments or sufficient to correct his misconduct.” (148 N.H. at 349)
“The unexplained loss of evidence may constitute negligence but, without more, will not amount to culpable negligence.” (148 N.H. at 349)
Factual background
Dowdle was accused of intentionally setting fire to her Nashua home and confessed to police that she had done so, stating that she used lighter fluid purchased at a CVS store. The State introduced corroborating evidence, including store video, financial-motive evidence, and forensic evidence that an accelerant consistent with Dowdle's account had been used. The State lost charcoal-strip samples taken from the fire scene after its analyst tested them, preventing Dowdle's expert from conducting an independent analysis; the record showed no explanation for the loss but no evidence of bad faith or more than ordinary negligence.
Procedural history
The Superior Court, Hampsey, J., denied Dowdle's pretrial motion to exclude forensic test results based on the State's failure to preserve charcoal-strip samples. During closing argument, the prosecutor made improper comments attacking defense counsel; the trial court denied a mistrial but gave a curative instruction. After the jury convicted Dowdle on all three charges, she appealed. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed and remanded for a new trial, while upholding the trial court's ruling that the loss of the forensic evidence did not violate due process.
Remand instructions
A new trial is required because the inadequate curative instruction constituted reversible error. The court also addressed the lost-evidence issue for purposes of proceedings on remand and upheld the trial court's due-process ruling.