Cited by

Although the defendant emphasizes different facts and conflicting evidence, and offers alternative explanations and interpretations of the evidence — challenging, among other things, the credibility of the officers, the accuracy of the radar unit, and the results of the field sobriety testing — “any conflicts in the evidence are for the fact finder to resolve.” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 310 (2004).

To prove that a defendant is “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” the State need only prove impairment to any degree.

weakens the inference” “that the defendant sought to suppress evidence of his guilt” by refusing to take a breath test); cf. State v. Ducharme, 167 N.H. 606, 612 (2015) (weighing an officer’s observations of “a distinctive odor of alcohol coming from [the defendant’s] breath” in favor of finding that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant for DUI (quotation omitted)); State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 309 (2004) (concluding that sufficient evidence existed to support a DUI conviction when 1

To prove that the defendant was guilty, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she “drove or attempted to drive a vehicle upon a way while [she] was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 309 (2004) (quotation omitted); see also RSA 265-A:2, I(a).

To prove that the defendant was guilty under RSA 265-A:2, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant drove or attempted to drive a vehicle upon a way while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 309 (2004) (quotation omitted); see also RSA 265-A:2, I(a).

We have held that to prove a driver was “under the influence,” the State need prove only that the driver was impaired “to any degree.” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 309 *165 (2004).

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

Any conflicts in the evidence were for the jury to resolve.

while such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” To prove that the defendant was “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” the State need only prove that the defendant was impaired to any degree.

“[T]o prove the defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove or attempted to drive a vehicle upon a way while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 308-09 (2004) (quotation omitted); see RSA 265:82,1.

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

“The suspect’s conduct and other specific facts must create a ‘significant possibility of criminality.’” State v. Wiggin, 151 N.H. 305, 308 (2004) (quoting State v. Vadnais, 141 N.H. 68, 70 (1996)).

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.