State v. Hinds

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the prosecutor’s references to the witness’s prior police statements and to Occam’s razor did not constitute reversible prosecutorial impropriety. The first argument permissibly invited an inference from evidence and common experience, while the second was a rhetorical response to the defense theory and did not dilute the state’s burden of proof. Even assuming impropriety, the remarks were isolated and nonsevere, the instructions were adequate, and the evidence of guilt was strong.