Cited by

Because the defendant failed to preserve his sufficiency challenge, we conduct a plain error analysis of his arguments on appeal.

With respect to the first prong of plain error review, we objectively review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images beyond a reasonable doubt, considering all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

Ct. R. 16-A; State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 720 (2017) (reviewing an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge under plain error); State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 272 (2015) (reviewing an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge under plain error); State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 380 (2011) (reviewing an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge to an AFSA conviction under plain error); State v. Lopez, 162 N.H. 153, 159 (2011) (reviewing an unpreserved sufficienc

Turning to the remaining plain error factors, we conclude that the error was plain because the evidence was insufficient to prove an essential element of the crimes; namely, that the defendant produced, promoted, or contributed to the delinquency of A, B, and C. State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 274 (2015); see RSA 169-B:41, I. We also “conclude that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights because the trial court’s failure to dismiss the charge at the close of the evidence led to hi

Issues raised in the notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375, 381 (2011); see also State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 273-74 (2015).

“To find plain error: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 273 (2015) (quotation omitted).

State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 271 (2015) (stating that in evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State).

8 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.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a claim of legal error and, accordingly, we assess the claim under a de novo standard of review.

“Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.” State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 273 (2015) (quotation omitted).

3 A. Whether there was Error When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we objectively review the record to determine whether a 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.

“Under the plain error rule, we may consider errors not raised before the trial court.” State v. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269, 273 (2015) (quotation omitted).

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