Cited by

“The defendant is not entitled to have the court use the exact words of requested instructions.” State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006).

“In reviewing the evidence, we examine each evidentiary item in the context of all the evidence, not in isolation.” State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006).

State v. Mohamed, 159 N.H. 559, 561 (2009); State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 408 (2006).

To prevail in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant bears 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.

To prove possession, the State had to establish that the defendant “had custody of the [shank] and exercised dominion and control over it.” State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006) (quotation omitted).

“When the language of a statute is clear on its face, its meaning is not subject to modification.” State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 407 (2006).

When the language of a statute is clear on its face, its meaning is not subject to modification.

To prevail in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant bears the burden of proving *455 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. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006) (citations omitted).

The relevant inquiry thus becomes whether the defendant knowingly possessed the images, in that he exerted some control over them, see State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006), or whether the presence of the images on his computer was merely inadvertent.

Because the defendant has not adequately briefed his argument regarding RSA 644:4, 1(b) as applied to him, we do not address it.

The remaining procedural issues have not been adequately briefed, and we therefore decline to address them.

“To prevail in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant bears 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. Crie, 154 N.H. 403, 406 (2006).