Cited by

Rule 403 of the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of intrinsic evidence.

Here, because the defendant chose to present a case, we review the entire trial record to assess the sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

We are not persuaded by the defendant’s arguments that the probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.

“‘The proper test to apply in deciding the admissibility of “similar acts” or “other acts” evidence depends upon whether the evidence in question is “intrinsic” or “extrinsic” evidence.’” State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 551 (2013) (quoting United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir. 1990)) (noting that the applicable test for admissibility of intrinsic evidence is found in Rule 403).

the best [he] could to get the snow off [his] van with a shovel.” As amici suggest, “the court sustainably could have found that [the defendant] exercised a degree of inattention and blameworthiness consistent with criminal negligence, but not amounting to intentional wrongdoing.” See State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 548-49 (2013) (explaining criminal negligence standard).

Because, in this case, the defendant chose to present a case, we review the entire trial record to determine the sufficiency of the evidence.

Because, in this case, the defendant chose to present a case, we review the entire trial record to determine the sufficiency of the evidence.

Id.; see State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 551 (2013).

Accordingly, because the plaintiff’s complaint was untimely under RSA 354-A:21, III, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the COA on this alternative ground.

Further, “[w]e review the entire trial record because, even though the defendant is not required to 2 present a case, if [he] chooses to do so, [he] takes the chance that evidence presented in [his] case may assist in proving the State’s case.” State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 548 (2013).

ng through the brush” because “[t]here was no direct evidence that there was more than one injury caused by the machete.” To prevail upon a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the defendant 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. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 552 (2013) (“Where the trial court reaches the correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision.” (quotation omitted)); Smith v. City of Franklin, 159 N.H. 585, 588 4 (2010) (“We review legislative history to aid our anal

“‘Other act’ evidence is ‘intrinsic,’” and therefore not subject to Rule 404(b), “when the evidence of the other act and the evidence of the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined’ or both acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or the other acts were ‘necessary preliminaries’ to the crime charged.” State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 551 (quotation omitted).

State v. Dion, 164 N.H. 544, 549-50, 552 (2013) (concluding that defendant’s inattention caused by her use of a cellular phone while driving was sufficient to support conviction for negligent homicide).

To prevail, the defendant must establish 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.

We review the entire trial record because the defendant chose to present evidence after the trial court denied his motions to dismiss.