Cited by

Analysis [¶5] Probation may be revoked upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of his freedom.

2 Probation may be revoked upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of his freedom.

Our interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.

State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (“Our 4 interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (“Our interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (“Our interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

As an initial matter, based upon DCYF’s initial petitions for neglect, we construe the court’s adjudicatory order as finding, in part, that B.R., S.R., and J.R. were neglected children because they were without proper “education as required by law.” RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) (2022); see State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (“Our interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

See, e.g., State v. Benner, 172 N.H. 194, 202 (2019) (deferred- sentence violation); Smith, 163 N.H. at 18 (suspended-sentence violation); State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 243-44 (2011) (probation violation).

at 823 (noting our discretion to waive preservation); State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (noting that our interpretation of a trial court’s order presents a question of law).

“In order to prevail on appeal, the defendant must show that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, fails to support the trial court’s decision.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 244 (2011).

“Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 243 (2011).

Some sentencing terms are implied and “need not be explicitly stated to give fair warning to the [defendant], such as that if [he] commits a crime, he will lose the privilege of his conditional liberty.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011).

State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 3 242 (2011) (concluding that sentencing order, which “plainly imposed an obligation on the defendant to pay child support and informed him that compliance was to occur through.

“Our interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011).

State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 242 (2011) (interpretation of trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo).

“Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 243 (2011).

“Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237, 243 (2011).

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

The interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error; therefore, our standard of review is de novo.

Our standard of review on this claim of legal error is de novo.