Cited by

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, and will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.

Because these findings are supported by evidence in the record, and because these incidents are neither too remote nor too vague to demonstrate a course of conduct, see Despres v. Hampsey, 162 N.H. 398, 402 (2011), we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant stalked the plaintiff.

The trial court has broad discretion to resolve conflicts in the testimony, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given to the evidence.

Even if this argument were fully developed, the trial court has broad discretion to resolve conflicts in the testimony, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given to the evidence.

It was within the trial court’s discretion to resolve conflicts in the testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given evidence.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law, upholding the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack support in the evidence or are tainted by error of law.

We accord considerable weight to the judgments of the trier of fact on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony.

“It was within the trial court’s discretion to resolve conflicts in the testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given evidence.” Despres v. Hampsey, 162 N.H. 398, 405 (2011) (quotation omitted).

We have held, however, that neither the stalking statute nor our case law requires the plaintiff to provide the specific dates upon which the prohibited acts occurred.

The defendant testified that she took the photographs to protect herself, “[b]ecause they’re accusing me of trying to injure children.” “It was within the trial court’s discretion to resolve conflicts in the testimony, measure the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight to be given evidence.” Despres v. Hampsey, 162 N.H. 398, 405 (2011) (quotation omitted).

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law and uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or tainted by error of law.

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.