State v. Martinez

Summary

The dissent would hold that the prosecutor denied Martinez a fair trial by knowingly telling the jury that no money had been found on him, despite the suppression order permitting only a qualified statement that there was no evidence of money found. It reasons that the misrepresentation both distorted the prosecution's constructive-possession theory and undermined the benefit of the suppression ruling, creating a reasonable likelihood of a different verdict. McDONALD, J., dissenting, would therefore reject the majority's conclusion that the misconduct was insufficiently severe to require relief.