Cited by

We defer to the trial court, as the trier of fact, on such matters as evaluating the credibility of witnesses, resolving conflicts in testimony, and determining the weight to be given evidence.

Once the State established that the compilation video was what it was purported to be, it was for the jury to evaluate its weight and credibility, and we reject the defendant’s suggestion that merely by adding circles around the parties whom the videographer was following in the video, the videographer “invaded the fact-finding province of the jury.” See State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 57 (2012) (stating that witness credibility and weight to be given evidence are matters for the jury to evaluate

The jury is responsible for evaluating witness credibility, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and determining the weight to be given to the evidence.

As we have stated in the past, matters such as weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in witness testimony are left to the jury.

It was for the jury to evaluate witness credibility, to resolve conflicts in testimony and to determine the weight to be given the evidence.

The evaluation of witness credibility, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and determining the weight to be given to the evidence were issues for the jury to resolve.

that was submitted for in camera review.” We review the trial court’s decision to withhold materials submitted for in camera review for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 58 (2012); Guay, 162 N.H. at 385.

The trial court found that “all [the defendant] did was perpetuate a further altercation with a person who was already leaving and the police had already been called.” Considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, see State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 55 (2012), we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. Santamaria, 145 N.H. 138, 141 (2000) (State must pr

State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 58 (2012); see also Desclos v. S. N.H. Med.

Hill, 163 N.H. at 396; see also State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 57 (2012) (“Because the relief requested by the defendant was dismissal of the indictment rather than a new trial and because his challenge was made at the close of the State’s case rather than after the jury returned its verdict, we conclude that this issue was not properly preserved for our review.”).

The opportunity to impeach a witness’s credibility through cross-examination is an incident of rights guaranteed by Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution.

The jury is responsible for “evaluation of witness credibility, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and determining the weight to be given to the evidence.” State v. Alwardt, 164 N.H. 52, 57 (2012).