Cited by

cette, 146 N.H. 583, 593 (2001) (explaining that because any one of the contacts alleged in Greene could have provided the basis for finding the element of unprivileged physical contact, and because “the defendant in Greene could potentially have been convicted of three separate assaults,” the jury had to be unanimous as to which unprivileged physical contact occurred); cf. State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 421 (2015) (declining to resolve whether Greene “can be squared with our later unanimity ca

The trier of fact “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. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015) (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, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State.

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 from it in the light most favorable to the State.

“The proper analysis is not whether every possible conclusion consistent with innocence has been excluded, but, rather, whether all reasonable conclusions based upon the evidence have been excluded.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015) (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to 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 essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State.

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 element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State.

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 from it in the light most favorable to the State.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 408 (2015) (quotation omitted).

“Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of jury instructions, are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 420 (2015) (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, considering all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

In engaging in this analysis, we examine each item of evidence within the context of all the evidence, and not in isolation, State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015), mindful that “common sense evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and obligation of the jury,” State v. Young, 159 N.H. 332, 339 (2009) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see also State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463 (2007) (in deciding challenge to the sufficiency of e

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 from it in the light most favorable to the State.

In engaging in this analysis, we examine each item of evidence within the context of all the evidence, and not in isolation, State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015), mindful that “common sense evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is within the province and obligation of the” trier of fact, State v. Young, 159 N.H. 332, 339 (2009) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see also State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 463 (2007) (in deciding challenge to the suffic

State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015) (stating trial court 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); cf. Clay v. City of Dover, 169 N.H. ___, ___ (decided Feb.

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 from it in the light most favorable to the State.

“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. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 412 (2015) (quotation omitted).

State v. Nickles, 144 N.H. 673, 676 (2000); see also State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 424 (2015) (finding no double jeopardy violation where defendant was convicted of manslaughter and a lesser including offense because he was sentenced only for manslaughter).

“The proper analysis is not whether every possible conclusion consistent with innocence has been excluded, but, rather, whether all reasonable conclusions based upon the evidence have been excluded.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 413 (2015) (quotation omitted).

“Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of jury instructions, are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s decisions on these matters for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. 400, 420 (2015) (quotation omitted).

A “bill of particulars is, in this State, a tool for clarifying an inadequate indictment or complaint.” State v. Sanborn, 168 N.H. ___, ___, 130 A.3d 563, 577 (2015) (quotation omitted); see State v. Kelly, 160 N.H. 190, 196 (2010) (noting that “it may be good practice to ask for a bill of particulars if a defendant is unsure of the specific acts alleged”).