State v. Mentus, 35 A.3d 572

Defendant Adam Mentus was convicted of manslaughter (RSA 630:2 (2007)) after a jury trial in Superior Court.
Mentus and others used a Lorcin L380 handgun; the gun discharged in a car, injuring Budzyna who died at hospital.
Mentus claimed the gun could have misfired and argued he needed a firearms expert; he sought $3,000 under RSA 604-A:6, but was funded only $1,200.
No firearms expert testified because the court denied the full requested funding; Mentus hired an attorney instead of an expert.
The State’s expert testified the gun was in good working order; evidence showed Mentus mishandled the gun, pointing it at the back of the seat.
Mentus argued the trial court’s funding denial and certain closing arguments were reversible errors; the trial court’s decisions were upheld on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 604-A:6 funding denial prejudiced Mentus	Mentus argued denial was unsustainable discretion and prejudiced defense.	State contends funding discretion was proper and not prejudicial.	No reversible prejudice; denial not substantial due to other evidence and trial strategy.
Whether the trial court properly overruled the objection to the State's closing argument	Mentus claimed closing misstated law and was unfairly prejudicial.	State contended closing urged guilt from the evidence and was permissible.	Overruling was not unsustainable; closing argument permissible.

State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666 (2005) (necessity standard for expert funding under RSA 604-A:6)
State v. Wellington, 150 N.H. 782 (2004) (indigent defendants' access to experts; discretion of court)
State v. Stow, 136 N.H. 598 (1993) (unsustainable exercise of discretion standard)
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (2001) (funding decisions and due process considerations)
State v. Lamprey, 149 N.H. 364 (2003) (reckless manslaughter and handling of loaded firearm)
State v. Sylvia, 136 N.H. 428 (1992) (prosecutor closing arguments; permissible inference from evidence)