Cited by

A security interest is “a property interest created by agreement or by operation of law to secure performance of an obligation (especially repayment of a debt).” State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 518 (2014) (brackets and quotation omitted).

State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014) (to prevail on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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); In the Matter of Hen

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 519 (2014) (quotations and citations omitted).

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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.

To prevail upon her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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.

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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.

“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error; therefore, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014).

To prevail upon his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred in Merrimack County.

“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error; therefore, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014).

“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error; therefore, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014).

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.” State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014).

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

Dumont v. Town of Wolfeboro, 137 N.H. 1, 5 (1993) (noting that “[c]lear and unambiguous terms of a deed control how we construe the parties’ intent”); State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 519 (2014) (noting that “[a]bsent ambiguity, the parties’ intent will be determined from the plain meaning of the language used in the contract” (quotation omitted)).

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of 9 legal error, our standard of review is de novo.