State v. Hinds

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor's comments about a witness's prior police statements and the use of Occam's razor were permissible arguments based on the evidence and the context of the trial. The court further held that, even if either remark were improper, the remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial because they were isolated and nonsevere, the instructions were adequate, and the evidence of guilt was strong.