State v. Sinclair

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of narcotics with intent to sell. It held that hearsay concerning the vehicle’s inspection location was not testimonial and, although improperly admitted, was harmless because the state presented substantial independent evidence of constructive possession and intent to sell. The court also held that three improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument did not create a reasonable likelihood of a different verdict or deprive the defendant of a fair trial.