Cited by

Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict pertain to two distinct concepts: the sufficiency of the evidence and the weight of the evidence, respectively.

.” State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007) (emphasis and quotation omitted).

To evaluate a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the court assesses whether the evidence is legally sufficient to prove guilt beyond a 3 reasonable doubt.

State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463-64 (2007) (explaining sufficiency of the evidence standard).

Although a verdict may be supported by sufficient evidence, a trial court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

was against the weight of the evidence.” See State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 466 (2007).

On reviewing a ruling for JNOV, we will uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

“Although a verdict may be supported by sufficient evidence, a trial court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007) (quotation omitted).

ngaging in this analysis, we examine each item of evidence within the context of all the evidence, and not in isolation, State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015), mindful that “common sense evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and obligation of the jury,” State v. Young, 159 N.H. 332, 339 (2009) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see also State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463 (2007) (in deciding challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to convict, the trial

this analysis, we examine each item of evidence within the context of all the evidence, and not in isolation, State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015), mindful that “common sense evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and obligation of the” trier of fact, State v. Young, 159 N.H. 332, 339 (2009) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see also State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463 (2007) (in deciding challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to convict, the trial c

see State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463-65 (2007) (distinguishing between challenges to the weight of the evidence and challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence).

A challenge to the weight of evidence supporting a conviction addresses whether the State carried its burden of persuasion.

ance under RSA 318-B:16” because she “did not control or ‘maintain’ Doane’s padlocked room.” On a motion for JNOV based upon evidentiary insufficiency, the trial court must uphold the jury’s verdict unless no rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

Assuming, without deciding, that this argument may properly be made in the context of a bench trial, but see State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465-68 (2007) (addressing issue in context of jury trial), and that the defendant 3 preserved the issue for review, but see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003) (we will not review an issue that appellant did not raise in trial court), we conclude that the trial court

“Although a verdict may be supported by sufficient evidence, a trial court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007) (quotation omitted).

The challenged instruction was apparently taken from our decisions in State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357 (1997), and State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456 (2007).

As we explained at length in State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007), in considering a motion to set aside the verdict based on the weight of the evidence, the trial court “sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the jury’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” “The trial court’s difference of opinion no more signifies acquittal than does a disagreement among th

State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007) (distinguishing between weight and sufficiency of the evidence challenges).

State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465-66 (2007) (quotations, citations, brackets, ellipses, and emphases omitted).

State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463-64 (2007) (“sufficiency of the evidence...

The evaluation of witness credibility and the weight given to witnesses’ testimony “were issues for the jury to resolve.” State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465 (2007).

ilty of a few of the charges, leaving other charges on the table in the event [the State] wanted to prosecute the wife.” He argues that the comments demonstrate that the “State failed to meet its constitutional burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” We will uphold a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict unless the ruling constitutes an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

We will uphold a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict unless its ruling was made without evidence or constituted an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

tends that the evidence was insufficient because the victim’s “allegations changed over time.” He argues, by contrast, that he testified in his own defense “and offered evidence countering every one of the allegations made by the alleged victim.” The defendant’s arguments go to the victim’s credibility and the proper weight to be given to the evidence, questions which were for the jury to resolve.

State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 464 (2006); State v. O’Neill, 134 N.H. 182, 184 (1991) (holding that similar standard of review applies in criminal and civil cases).

In considering a motion for JNOV, the trial court cannot weigh the evidence or inquire into the credibility of the witnesses, and if the evidence adduced at trial is conflicting, or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion should be denied.