Cited by

I Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find the following facts.

A defendant’s intent often must be proved by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct under all the circumstances.

State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 129-30 (2014); RSA 635:1, I. In this case, the defendant was charged with entering the victims’ residence with the purpose of committing theft.

The crime of burglary consists of two elements: (1) unauthorized entry; and (2) an intent, at the time of entry, to commit a crime therein.

When examining the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of guilty, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, we do not determine whether another possible hypothesis that has been suggested by the defendant could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.

When examining the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

When examining the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of guilty, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In such a challenge, “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. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (quotation omitted).

“The crime of burglary consists of two elements: (1) unauthorized entry; and (2) an intent to commit a crime therein.” State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 129-30 (2014) (quotation omitted); see RSA 635:1, I. The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that, when he entered the house, he intended to commit a theft inside.

“The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.” State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (quotation omitted).

A defendant’s intent often must be proven by circumstantial evidence.

<£When the evidence is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.” State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 130 (2014) (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. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (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. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (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. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (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. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125, 128 (2014) (quotation omitted).

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 90 A.3d 614, 618 (2014) (quotation omitted).