Cited by

State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 285 (2010); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986).

We will review the trial court’s decision to determine whether its ruling reflects an analysis of the Miller factors and whether the court acted within its discretion.

We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs’ due process argument is not preserved.

State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 278 (2010) (concluding defendant waived constitutional arguments because he made only “passing references” to the State and Federal Constitutions).

We evaluate the trial court’s decision to deny depositions for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 285 (2010) (explaining that, in order to preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must “raise it in the trial court” and “specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief”).

State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 286 (2010) (concluding that the trial court did not violate the restitution statute by ordering the defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the future for counseling costs occasioned by his crime because nothing in that statute “precludes a trial court from ordering a defendant to pay restitution for future eco

“The evaluation of witness credibility and the weight given to witnesses’ testimony [are] issues for the jury to resolve.” State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 276 (2010) (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 279 (2010); State v. Doucette, 146 N.H. 583, 589-91 (2001); Elliott, 133 N.H. at 765-67.

See, e.g., State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 277 (2010); State v. Sargent, 148 N.H. 571, 575 (2002).

“When there is conflicting factual testimony, we defer to the findings of the jury unless no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion.” State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 276 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Because the defendant has not specifically invoked a provision of the State Constitution in his brief, we consider his claim only under the Federal Constitution.

To “preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must: (1) raise it in the trial court; and (2) specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief.” State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 285 (2010).

The weight to be given to the testimony was an issue for the trial court to resolve.

The evaluation of witness credibility and the weight to be given to the witnesses’ testimony were issues for the trial court to resolve.

The evaluation of a witness’s credibility is within the province of the jury.

State v. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 280 (2010); State v. Giddens, 155 N.H. 175, 179 (2007).

However, evaluation of witness credibility, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and determining the weight to be given to the evidence are matters within the province of the jury.

failed to prove that he acted with the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.” In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the juvenile 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. Oakes, 161 N.H. 270, 275 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Based upon this conflicting evidence, a rational juror was not compelled to find that a threat was made.