Cited by

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.

This threshold showing is not unduly high.

We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an unsustainable exercise of 3 discretion and reverse only if the court’s decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.

Standard of Review We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an unsustainable exercise of discretion and reverse only if the court’s decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant’s case.

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

“We review challenges to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and reverse only if the rulings are clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of a party’s case.” State v. Fiske, 170 N.H. 279, 286 (2017) (quotation omitted).

We consider as waived any arguments raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed.

Stachulski, 171 N.H. at 172; State v. Fiske, 170 N.H. 279, 291 (2017).

“We review challenges to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard and reverse only if the rulings are clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of a party’s case.” State v. Fiske, 170 N.H. 279, 286 (2017) (quotation omitted).

We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for unsustainable exercises of discretion.

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error.

10 Issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal, but not briefed are deemed waived.

We review the trial court’s statutory interpretation de novo.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Fiske, 170 N.H. 279, 288 (2017) (quotation omitted).