Cited by

State v. Gay, 169 N.H. 232, 246 (2016); see State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290 (2015) (agreeing with trial court that Rule 404(b) applied to alternative perpetrator evidence at issue in that case).

[¶18] As we previously explained, the third prong of the Rule 404(b) analysis requires that the probative value of the evidence not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

admits “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), it generally must first determine: (1) that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition; (2) that there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior act; and (3) that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

Because the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary decision made, we hold that the trial court’s ruling is not clearly untenable or unreasonable.

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 292 (2015) (declining to address an insufficiently developed argument).

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 288 (2015); see also N.H. R. Ev.

We do not determine whether the defendant has suggested another possible hypothesis that could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.

The government’s failure to disclose favorable, material information to the defense is referred to as a “Brady violation.” See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290-91 (2015); see Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

We do not determine whether the defendant has suggested another possible hypothesis that could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.

Nonetheless, on appeal, we view the 4 evidence, and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the State and the defendant bears the burden of proving 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. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 292 (2015) (quotation omitted).

The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.

The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the evidence was insufficient.

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 292 (2015) (declining to address an insufficiently developed argument).

This prong involves the same analysis as that conducted pursuant to Rule 403.

I. Background We accept the trial court’s findings where supported by the record of the suppression hearing.

The trial court has discretion to admit evidence.

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290 (2015) (agreeing with trial court that Rule 404(b) applied to alternative perpetrator evidence at issue in that case); see also State v. Durgin, 165 N.H. 725, 729 (2013) (assuming, without deciding, that Rule 404(b) applies to alternative perpetrator evidence).

We review the trial court’s decision under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 290 (2015) (declining to address insufficiently developed argument); see also Hill, 146 N.H. at 577 (explaining that the “issue of Fourteenth Amendment due process” and “the issue of any Fifth Amendment rights as incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” are “distinct concepts”).

403, evidence governed by Rule 404(b) must meet the same balancing test as well as the other prongs of a Rule 404(b) analysis, see State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 287-88 (2015) (listing the three prongs of the Rule 404(b) test and noting that the third prong “involves the same analysis as that conducted pursuant to Rule 403”).

When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous, and we review its legal conclusions de novo.

State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 292 (2015) (declining to address an insufficiently developed argument).

een remotely operating the equipment.” “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. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 292 (2015) (quotation omitted).

“The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 284 (2015) (quotation omitted).

rimes, wrongs, or acts’ evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), it generally must first determine: (1) that the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than character or disposition; (2) that there is clear proof that the defendant committed the prior act; and (3) that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 287 (2015) (quotation omitted).

Exxon does not present any argument on the hardship prong of the ripeness test, and we therefore consider any argument regarding that prong to be waived.