are also supported by the evidence. The witness paid elose attention to the burglar. She was not frightened by him, but instead focused upon his face in an attempt to determine who he was. Cf. State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. 214, 220, 385 A.2d 831, 834 (1978) (implying that the fact that the witness was “scared” and acted “like he was in shock” at the time of the robbery would have lessened the degree of attention he paid to the features of the suspect). Her identification of the defendant should not be discounted simply because she is not a police officer specially trained to observe details. Further, her description of the burglar, although lacking in some details, substantially agreed with the defendant’s appearance. See State v. Heald, 120 N.H. 319, 323, 414 A.2d 1288, 1290 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Allard, 123 N.H. 209, 214,
holding that selfinterested witnesses can be reliable when they provide detailed testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or facts holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that the government had established necessity for wiretaps despite its use of three cooperating witnesses because those witnesses were able to give agents only limited information not including the names of all members of the conspiracy holding that the descriptions given by three witnesses were sufficiently accurate despite the fact that they varied in detail holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed