Cited by

e State “failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [his] criminal conduct caused [K.C.’s] death.” [¶17] To prevail on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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.

Moreover, even if we assume inconsistency exists between the two verdicts, “the inconsistency of simultaneous jury verdicts against a single defendant on a multiple-count criminal indictment need not be rationally reconciled, and does not entitle the defendant to relief.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 354 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We have held that a person charged with criminal negligence may not be convicted on evidence that establishes only ordinary negligence.

We note that, at the start of the trial, the court instructed the jury that “[i]f the lawyers or I state the facts differently from the way you recollect them to be, then you should disregard what the lawyers or I have said about the facts and follow your own recollection.” “The jury is presumed to follow the instructions given by the trial court.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 348 (2005).

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 349 (2005) (brackets and quotations omitted).

“[T]he purpose of the trial court’s charge is to state and explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the rules of law applicable to the case.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 333-34 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We conclude that the defendant’s challenges to the witness’s testimony pertain to 3 its weight rather than its admissibility.

“The jury is presumed to follow 15 the instructions given by the trial court.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 348 (2005).

On the contrary, we conclude that any misstatements of the evidence by the prosecutor as to the exact location of semen or sperm found on the victim’s underwear would have been cured by the trial court’s jury instructions, given both at the outset of trial and after the close of evidence, that the lawyers’ “arguments are not evidence.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 348 (2005) (“The jury is presumed to follow the instructions given by the trial court.”).

The determination of how to respond to a deliberating jury’s question or request is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion, and the trial court’s exercise of this discretionary power will not be cause for reversal unless there has been an unsustainable exercise of the discretion.

We note, however, that the defendant did not object to the State’s closing argument on the basis that the prosecutor had improperly invited the jury to consider the content of the letter for its truth.

In considering the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, we review the entire trial record because the defendant chose to present a case after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss.

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 335 (2005) (consciousness of guilt may be evidenced by flight).

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 357 (2005) (stating that trial judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, and we review sentencing decisions under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

A trial judge has broad discretion to choose the sources and types of evidence upon which to rely in imposing sentence, and we review that sentencing decision under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

The trial court may properly instruct the jury on flight if it “could reasonably infer that the defendant’s flight reflected consciousness of guilt.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 335 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“We review the entire trial record because, even though the defendant is not required to present a case, if he chooses to do so, he takes the chance that evidence presented in his case may assist in proving the State’s case.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 350 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We review sentencing decisions under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

ious, or were known and recognized by the State,” and that, in any event, the trial court “correctly concluded that its misconduct instruction adequately encompassed Exxon’s waiver defense.” 8 Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary and the exact scope and wording of jury instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

5 As the Federal Constitution offers the defendant no greater protection than the State Constitution under these circumstances, see United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674-75 (1975); State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 342 (2005), we reach the same result under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State Constitution.

“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, and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 334 (2005) (citations omitted).

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 350 (2005) (quotation omitted).

However, if the trial court denies the motion and the defendant then offers evidence, “[w]e review the entire trial *396 record because, even though the defendant is not required to present a case, if he chooses to do so, he takes the chance that evidence presented in his case may assist in proving the State’s case.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 349-50 (2005).

Rather, “the purpose of the trial court’s charge is to state and explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the rules of law applicable to the case.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 333-34 (2005) (quotation and brackets omitted).

These facts were all “evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt.” State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380, 387 (2006); see also State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 335 (2005) (flight demonstrates consciousness of guilt).

In general, to prevail on 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 a light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt by the standard of proof applicable to the proceeding in question.

The parties have not briefed these issues sufficiently for our review and they are not encompassed within the notice of appeal.

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 335 (2005) (consciousness of guilt may be evidenced by flight).

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 349-50 (2005) (quotation and brackets omitted).

When reviewing jury instructions, we evaluate allegations of error by interpreting the disputed instructions in their entirety, as a reasonable juror would have understood *632 them, and in light of all the evidence in the case.

“To prevail on 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. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 350 (2005) (quotation omitted).

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 349-50 (2005) (quotation omitted).

Not every act of carelessness that results in a death or serious bodily injury entails criminal negligence, however, and a person charged with criminal negligence may not be convicted on evidence that establishes only ordinary negligence.

“[T]he purpose of the trial court’s charge is to state and explain to the jury, in clear and intelligible language, the rules of law applicable to the case.” State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 333-34 (2005) (quotation omitted).

State v. Emery, 152 N.H. 783, 788 (2005); State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 350 (2005).

Because the jury is presumed to follow the instructions given by the trial court, see State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 348 (2005), any prejudice caused by the admission of the evidence of the firearms and ammunition was slight.

It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a particular jury instruction is necessary.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the evidence, viewed in its entirety and with all reasonable inferences drawn in the State’s favor, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime charged.

State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331, 350 (2005) (reviewing sufficiency of evidence underlying the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss); State v. Small, 150 N.H. 457, 464 (2004) (reviewing sufficiency of evidence underlying the jury verdict).