Cited by

sexual relations with [the victim] at his residence.” We have previously determined that “[c]ircumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and that “the trier may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences, provided they can be reasonably drawn therefrom.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 355 (2013), modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015) (quota

Because the evidence adduced at trial regarding the defendant’s “reckless” intent was solely circumstantial, in order to prevail on appeal, “the defendant must establish that the evidence does not exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

Given the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the defendant has not met her “burden to demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 362 (2013) (quotation omitted), modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015); see also State v. Gagne, 165 N.H. 363, 367 (2013) (emphasizing that when evidence as to an element is solely circu

We “consider whether the circumstances presented are consistent with guilt and inconsistent, on the whole, with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 362 (2013), modified in part on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015) (quotation omitted).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified on other grounds in part by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified on other grounds in part by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified in part on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 359, 79 A.3d 1025 (2013), modified in part on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345, 127 A.3d 1255 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), modified on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013), abrogated on other grounds by State v. King, 168 N.H. 340, 345 (2015).

When the evidence is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.

The defendant argues that the evidence used to support his conviction was “solely circumstantial,” and therefore his burden on appeal is to establish that the evidence does not exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.

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).

To prevail in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013), overruled on other grounds by State v. King, 167 N.H. ___, ___ (decided Nov.

She argues that the Superior Court (Garfunkel, J.) erred by giving the jury a portion of the instruction we endorsed in State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 360- 61 (2013).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 360 (2013) (holding that when the evidence as to one or more of the elements of the charged offense is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 358-59 (2013) 6 (discussing the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in context of circumstantial evidence); State v. Wilson, 47 N.H. 101, 106-07 (1866) (“In the legal construction of the law as well as in weighing the evidence of facts the defendant in a criminal [case] is en

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361 (2013) (holding that to prevail on challenge to sufficiency of evidence when evidence as to one or more elements of charged offense is solely circumstantial, defendant must establish that evidence does not exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt).

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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

Pursuant to our standard, “[w]hen 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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013) (quotation omitted; emphasis added).

“In reviewing the evidence, we examine each evidentiary item in the context of all the evidence, not in isolation.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 355 (2013).

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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013) (quotation omitted).

The defendant first argues that the State introduced insufficient evidence to convict him.

“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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013) (quotation omitted).

Analysis To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must show that no 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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013) (quotation omitted).

Furthermore, when the evidence as to one or more elements of the charged offense is solely circumstantial, the defendant must establish that the evidence does not exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.

“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 therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 354-55 (2013) (quotation omitted).

State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350, 361-62 (2013) (emphasis in original) (quotations omitted).

When the evidence as to one or more of the elements of the charged offense is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.

When the evidence is solely circumstantial as to an element, it must exclude all reasonable conclusions except guilt.