Cited by

The New Hampshire Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant reasonably competent assistance of counsel.

Both constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant reasonably competent assistance of counsel.

Because the proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, to establish that a trial attorney’s performance fell below this objective standard of reasonableness, the defendant must show that no competent lawyer would have engaged in the conduct of which he accuses his trial counsel.

Because the proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, to establish that a trial attorney’s performance fell below this objective standard of reasonableness, the defendant must show that no competent lawyer would have engaged in the conduct of which he accuses his trial counsel.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

“Because the standard for determining whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel is the same under both constitutions, necessarily, we reach the same result under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State Constitution.” State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 689 (2016) (quotation omitted); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all of the reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both the State and Federal Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant reasonably competent assistance of counsel.

“To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 677 (2016).

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 685 (2016) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument.

State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 680-81 (2016) (quotation omitted).

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error that we review de novo.

State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 687 (2016) (holding that trial counsel was not ineffective because “[t]he decision to neutralize the testimony rather than to object was a reasonable tactical choice” (quotation omitted)).

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

At the outset, we agree with the State that the evidence of the defendant’s impairment was not solely circumstantial and, thus, that the evidence was not required to exclude all reasonable inferences other than his guilt.

A prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented and has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

To prevail upon her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charged crimes.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

State v. Cable, 168 N.H. 673, 679 (2016) (relying upon presence of alcohol in boat to support finding that defendant’s impairment caused victim’s death).

To prevail upon his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charged crimes.

Because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error, our standard of review is de novo.

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.