Volume 168 — Vermont Reports

<bold>1. Search and Seizure — Issuance of Warrant — Probable Cause</bold> Probable cause to support search warrant exists where information set out in affidavit reveals circumstances from which a person of reasonable caution would conclude that crime has been committed and that evidence of crime will be found in the place to be searched; court examines totality of circumstances to determine whether there was substantial evidence supporting warrant, keeping in mind that<page_number>Page 155</page_number> affidavits must be viewed in a common-sense manner and not be subjected to hypertechnical scrutiny. <bold>2. Search and Seizure — Issuance of Warrant — Probable Cause</bold> Even without presence of anonymous tip, search warrant affidavit set forth sufficient information to support probable cause to believe evidence of marijuana would be found at defendant's residence, where affidavit showed that trooper observed a large waterbong in plain sight in defendant's residence which was stained and appeared to have been used, and that trooper detected odor of marijuana and observed defendant move a door such that it hid waterbong from view. <bold>3. Search and Seizure — Issuance of Warrant — Grounds</bold> Court at trial for marijuana possession did not err in determining that trooper had not provided false or misleading information in affidavit supporting search warrant, where court found trooper's testimony credible that the unused waterbong produced by defendant in court was different from the used one he had observed at defendant's residence. <bold>4. Criminal Law — Right to Fair Trial — Particular Cases</bold> Two caches of marijuana introduced at defendant's trial for marijuana possession both tended to show defendant's commission of a single, continuing offense, not multiple acts, and State was not required to elect an individual cache on which to base its case, nor was district court required to instruct jury to premise guilt of constructive possession on a single cache. <cross_reference>18 V.S.A. § 4230</cross_reference> (a)(1). <bold>5. Criminal Law — Prosecutorial Conduct — Particular Cases</bold> Defendant at trial for marijuana possession was not prejudiced by prosecutor's comments during closing argument that defendant did not "at any time" indicate that marijuana did not belong to him; context of rebuttal argument made clear that prosecutor was limiting her comment to what defendant had said, and not said, when trooper searched defendant's house, and that prosecutor was not commenting on defendant's failure to testify at trial. <bold>6. Criminal Law — Prosecutorial Conduct — Particular Cases</bold> There was no reasonable probability that jury at trial for marijuana possession would have returned a different verdict had it known that defendant's roommate had also been charged with marijuana possession, and defendant's right to a fair trial was therefore not compromised by prosecutor's comment during closing argument that there was no evidence "in this case" that the roommate possessed marijuana, smoked marijuana, or was living in the house.