Cited by

[¶27] It is true that “[w]e generally presume that jurors follow the trial court’s instructions.” State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 63 (2003).

wrapped his hand around her neck and applied pressure.” Although there were conflicts between the victim’s trial testimony and her pretrial statements to Platt, the jury was free to “accept some parts and reject other parts” of the victim’s testimony and to “adopt one or the other of [her] inconsistent statements.” State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 56 (2003) (quotations omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 57, 834 A.2d 339 (2003) ("The act of cunnilingus does not require actual penetration."); State v. Melcher, 140 N.H. 823, 824, 826, 678 A.2d 146 (1996) ("Whatever its commonly accepted meaning,...

See, e.g., State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 57 (2003) (“The act of cunnilingus does not require actual penetration.”); State v. Melcher, 140 N.H. 823, 824, 826 (1996) (“Whatever its commonly accepted meaning,...

Ultimately, in determining the best interests of justice, the purposes underlying joinder, ie., efficiency and economy, must give way when conducting a single trial would jeopardize a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

It is well settled that an error is harmless only if it is determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was not affected by the error.

Misjoinder of criminal offenses is subject to harmless error analysis.

In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant carries the burden of proving that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have previously held that misjoinder of criminal offenses is subject to harmless error analysis.

no evidence that the two maintained a single economic unit, or participated and contributed to the maintenance of the household.” *237 “In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant carries the burden of proving that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 56 (2003) (quotation omitted).

In raising a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “the defendant carries the burden of proving that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 56 (2003).

Additionally, the State concedes that if Ramos applies to this case, it cannot prove “harmless error.” See State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 62 (2003) (holding that misjoinder of criminal offenses is subject to harmless error analysis).