Cited by

asonable doubt standard and cautioning “trial judges to avoid attempts at further defining reasonable doubt”); State v. Aubert, 120 N.H. 634, 635-38 (1980) (concluding that the trial court’s reasonable doubt charge, which added language to the charge set forth in Wentworth, was “improper,” and requesting “that trial judges not add to the model charge” established in Wentworth); State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 352 (2012) (“[I]n a criminal case that includes direct evidence, trial courts should n

W]here the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

direct and circumstantial evidence of the elements of the crime, the defendant’s sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the factfinder’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a reasonable conclusion other than guilt if the credibility issues had been resolved differently.

stantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a 7 reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

W]here the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

However, in a sufficiency challenge, where we consider all the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, we “assume[] the jury made all factual findings and credibility determinations necessary to support its verdict.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351-52 (2012) (emphasis omitted); see also Woodbury, 172 N.H. at 364 (“[M]atters such as weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in witness testimony are left to the j

When the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the trier of fact’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the trier of fact had resolved credibility issues differently.

his case, the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the trier of fact’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the trier of fact had resolved credibility issues differently.

State presents both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt, “a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s 6 credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.

Therefore, the defendant’s sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 356 (2012) (stating that we defer to trial court’s credibility determinations).

We also assume “all credibility resolutions in favor of the State.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

However, in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we assume all credibility resolutions in favor of the State.

However, “where solely circumstantial evidence is at issue, the critical question is whether, even assuming all credibility resolutions in favor of the State, the inferential chain of circumstances is of sufficient strength that guilt is the sole rational 14 conclusion.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

When “the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

We assume “all credibility resolutions in favor of the State.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012).

Although the defendant refers to the standard we apply when evidence to prove an element is solely circumstantial, see State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), that standard does not apply here because the evidence of causation was both direct and circumstantial, see State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 349-52 (2012).

“When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012) (quotation omitted).

“When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012) (quotation omitted).

Thus, instructions “may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 352 (2012) (citation omitted).

State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 349 (2012); see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 *476 (1970).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences *355 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342, 351 (2012) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

Where the evidence does not consist solely of circumstantial evidence, it need not exclude all rational conclusions other than guilt.