Cited by

A jury is “free to accept or reject any portion of a witness’s testimony and to resolve any conflicts in testimony.” State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 275 (2015) (quotation omitted).

As the trier of fact, the trial judge is free to accept or reject any portion of any witness’s testimony, and to resolve conflicts in testimony.

However, the existence of any inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony was a factor for the jury to consider in assessing their credibility.

The existence of any inconsistencies in the manager’s testimony was a factor for the jury to consider in deciding the appropriate weight to be accorded the testimony.

Whether a particular jury instruction is necessary, and the scope and wording of jury instructions, are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

For a defendant to be entitled to an instruction on a specific defense, there must be some evidence to support a rational finding in favor of that defense.

To the contrary, it was within the province of the trial court to evaluate the defendant’s credibility and to find his account of the facts, including his claim that he thought the officer was in the process of making a traffic stop when he decided to pass the officer, “implausible.” State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 275 (2015); State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 247 (2009) (trier of fact is in best position to measure persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not required to believe even uncontes

In resolving a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, we are mindful that credibility determinations are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

In resolving a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, however, credibility determinations are within the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the State Constitution provides three double jeopardy protections: (1) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) protection against subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.

We will uphold the trial court’s credibility determinations unless no rational trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion.

We will uphold the trial court’s credibility determinations unless no rational trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion.

“The issue of double jeopardy presents a question of constitutional law, which we review de novo.” State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 273 (2015).

State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 267 (2015) (stating defendant convicted of witness tampering); Craig, 167 N.H. at 364 (same); State v. DiNapoli, 149 N.H. 514, 515 (2003) (same); State v. Baird, 133 N.H. 637, 638 (1990) (same).

State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 275 (2015) (stating fact finder is free to reject any portion of a witness’s testimony).

“An indictment generally is sufficient if it recites the language of the relevant statute; it need not specify the means by which the crime was accomplished or other facts that are not essential to the elements of the crime.” State v. Carr, 167 N.H. 264, 269 (2015) (quotation omitted).