Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Islander
...People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine... Incredible how people have forgotten that accident...
|
I am surprised at your constant confusion over this issue. Did you not take the time to read the appeal
that you cited for us numerous posts ago? Let me refresh your memory:
Belknap
No. 2003-627
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
Daniel J. Littlefield
Argued: October 13, 2004
Opinion Issued: June 16, 2005
...The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257.
...WE AGREE WITH THE STATE...
Once again, and confirmed by the appeals court, Littlefield was convicted of the felony death of another by failing to maintain a proper lookut do in large part by the jury lawfully (and constitutionally)
considering the ample evidence supplied by the State that he was intoxicated!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Islander
...It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like...
|
Methinks one should perhaps take the time to deeply consider one's own opinion!
