Cited by

id.; State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 719 (2017) (concluding that evidence was sufficient to show that defendant knowingly possessed cocaine and rejecting defendant’s argument that “it would have been reasonable to infer that she did not know that the cocaine was there” (brackets omitted)).

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 c

The State bore the burden to show that the warrantless seizure fell within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, State v. Donovan, 175 N.H. 356, 360 (2022), or, alternatively, that the taint of the illegal seizure was subsequently purged, State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 717 (2017).

Instead, the officer’s continued detention of the defendant when he asked for her consent to search her vehicle for drugs altered the fundamental nature of the traffic stop and thus was unlawful.2 See State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 722 (2017) (Hicks, J., concurring) (“An investigation into the possession of contraband is fundamentally different from an investigation of traffic violations.”).

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

Thus, for the evidence to be sufficient, it need not have excluded all reasonable conclusions except guilt.

To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove 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.

We therefore conclude that his seizure violated his rights under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.

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

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

In order to prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, evaluating all of the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the charged crime.

Id.; see State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 718 (2017) (explaining that “although the evidence seized during the search.

To review the trial court’s suppression ruling, we consider the findings contained in its order and the record of the suppression hearing as summarized below.

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

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

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

State v. Morrill, 169 N.H. 709, 717 (2017) (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires the exclusion from trial of evidence derivatively obtained through a violation of Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.” (quotation omitted)).