Cited by

Etienne, 163 N.H. at 70; see also State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003).

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 418-19, 422 (2003) (rejecting defendant’s argument that trial court should have applied the same false exculpatory statement instruction regarding the defendant to one of the witnesses, in part, because exculpatory statements of other witnesses constitute a “theory of the case” on which the trial court is not require

State v. Peters, 162 N.H. 30, 37-38 (2011) (noting that consciousness of guilt may be inferred from an attempt to influence a witness); cf. State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420-21 (2003) (upholding instruction allowing jury to infer consciousness of guilt from false exculpatory statements made by the defendant in order to influence a witness).

In addition, there was evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the defendant was conscious of his guilt, including his inconsistent explanations for how the victim died, see State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003), and evidence that he hid the victim’s blood-stained pajama top, see Edic, 169 N.H. at 590.

Although the defendant’s false exculpatory claims could have been considered circumstantial evidence of guilt, see State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003), given the extent of the alternative evidence that the defendant did, in fact, believe that Dakota was under 16, the State has 4 shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the e-mail excerpts admitted into evidence did not affect the verdict.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420, 839 A.2d 8 (2003) (explaining that "[i]t is reasonable to infer consciousness of guilt from a defendant's false exculpatory statement because an innocent person does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or statement tending to establish...

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003) (explaining that “[i]t is reasonable to infer consciousness of guilt from a defendant’s false exculpatory statement because an innocent person does not usually find it necessary to invent or fabricate an explanation or statement tending to establish.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003) (consciousness of guilt may be evidenced by exculpatory statements later discovered to be false).

To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under this standard, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found his statements to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Evidence that a defendant intentionally made an exculpatory statement that is later discovered to be false may constitute circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.” State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003).

To prevail on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003) (consciousness of guilt may be *38 evidenced by exculpatory statements later discovered to be false).

To successfully challenge sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our sufficiency of the evidence standard requires that we view each evidentiary item in context and not in isolation.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003) (discussing sufficiency of evidence burden of proof generally).

To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003) (“It is reasonable to infer consciousness of guilt from a defendant’s false exculpatory statement.”).

To prevail upon his sufficiency of the evidence argument, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the video clip depicted an actual child under the age of sixteen.

the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003).

To prevail in his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant had to prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant had to prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all *66 of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We interpret jury instructions as a reasonable juror would have understood them.

*746 To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003) (citations omitted).

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424 (2003) (citations omitted).

To prevail *53 upon her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the evidence is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all rational conclusions except guilt.

Whether or not a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of jury instructions, are both within the sound discretion of the trial court, see State v. Cook, 148 N.H. 735, 741-42 (2002); State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003), and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, see State v. Poole, 150 N.H. 299, 301 (2003).

On December 21, 2001, a jury convicted the petitioner of reckless second-degree murder, see RSA 630:1-b (1996), five counts of second-degree assault, see RSA 631:2 (1996), endangering the welfare of a minor, see RSA 639:3, I (1996), and simple assault, see RSA 631:2-a (1996).

The scope and wording of jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003), and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion, see State v. Poole, 150 N.H. 299, 301 (2003).

Whether or not a particular jury instruction is necessary, the scope and wording of jury instructions, and the response to a question from the jury are all within the sound discretion of the trial court, see State v. Cook, 148 N.H. 735, 741-42 (2002) (necessity); State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 420 (2003) (scope and wording); State v. Poole, 150 N.H. 299, 301 (2003) (response to jury question), and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion,

Evans was tried and convicted of reckless second-degree murder for the death of Kassidy.