State v. Wells

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well
as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers
are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One
Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in
order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors
may be reported by email at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us.
Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their
release. The direct address of the court’s home page is:
https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________

Rockingham
Case No. 2023-0562
Citation: State v. Wells, 2026 N.H. 8

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

v.

JOSHUA WELLS

Argued: September 16, 2025
Opinion Issued: March 3, 2026

John M. Formella, attorney general, and Anthony J. Galdieri, solicitor
general (Robert L. Baldridge, assistant attorney general, on the memorandum
of law and orally), for the State.

Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, P.L.L.C., of Manchester (Donna J. Brown and
Michael G. Eaton on the brief, and Michael G. Eaton orally), for the defendant.

COUNTWAY, J.
[¶1] The defendant, Joshua Wells, appeals his convictions following a
jury trial in Superior Court (St. Hilaire, J.) on one misdemeanor count of simple
assault, see RSA 631:2-a, I(a) (2016), and one misdemeanor count of resisting
arrest, see RSA 642:2 (2016). The defendant argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.

2
[¶2] The jury could have found the following facts. The defendant was
one of three passengers in a vehicle that was pulled over for speeding by a
Salem police officer. When the officer reached the vehicle, he noticed a “very
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from inside the vehicle.” When the
officer requested each passenger’s identification and that the passengers roll
down the backseat window, the defendant, who was seated in the backseat,
started yelling and cursing at the officer. The defendant continued to yell and
interrupt the officer while the officer attempted to speak with the driver.
Eventually, the officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle. After stepping
out of the vehicle, the defendant turned toward the officer while yelling at him.
The defendant “aggressively” stepped toward the officer, pointing at him, and
then “shoved his finger into [the officer’s] chest.” The officer told the defendant
he was under arrest and grabbed his wrist to place him under arrest. The
defendant “pulled away” and then turned toward the officer, causing the officer
to lift him and bring him to the ground. While the defendant was on the
ground, the officer handcuffed him with the assistance of another officer (the
backup officer) who had arrived on scene to assist. Another passenger in the
vehicle captured part of the altercation on video.

¶3 The defendant was subsequently charged with resisting arrest and
simple assault. At trial, the jury was shown the video of the altercation and
heard testimony from the officers who were at the scene. At the close of
evidence, the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss the resisting
arrest and simple assault charges. The jury convicted the defendant on both
counts, and this appeal followed.

¶4 On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support his convictions. Following oral argument, we ordered supplemental
briefing “addressing the applicable standard of review when this court views
the same video evidence that was presented to the jury.” The defendant argues
that we should adopt a de novo standard of review for such evidence. The
State counters that we should apply our traditional standard of review that
considers all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to
determine whether a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. See State v. Seibel, 174 N.H. 440, 445 (2021). For the reasons that
follow, we agree with the State and conclude that video evidence presented to
the jury is no different than other evidence, such as photographs or audio
recordings, and must be reviewed on appeal under the familiar standard that
calls on us to view all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the State and then determine whether
a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.

¶5 In arguing for a de novo standard, the defendant maintains that, in
reviewing video evidence that was presented to the jury, we are “in the same
position as the trial court and the jury” to consider such evidence. He
contends that “there is no dispute about the accuracy of the video,” and

3
suggests that “when, as here, credibility determinations are not required in
order to review, consider, and draw inferences from the video evidence,” factual
findings by a trial court or jury should be accorded less deference on appeal.
Cf. Hillside Assocs. of Hollis v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 135 N.H. 325, 330
(1992) (holding in civil case that, because case was submitted on record and all
the documents that the trial court relied upon in reaching its decision were
“available for our perusal,” the trial court “was in no better position to decide
the case” than is this court and “less than ordinary deference” should thus be
given on appellate review). We disagree.

¶6 Even if we assume that the defendant is correct that the accuracy of
the video is not in dispute, the video evidence was not the only evidence
presented to the jury: It also heard live testimony from witnesses who were at
the scene describing what is both shown and not shown on the video. The
jury, as the finder of fact, was in a better position than this court to view the
video evidence in the context of the witnesses’ testimony. See State v. King, 151 N.H. 59, 64 (2004) (“Because the jury observes and evaluates the
testimony of the witnesses, it is generally in a better position than this court to
determine the facts and to assess the credibility of witnesses.”). The Supreme
Court of Arizona underlined this principle when considering the standard of
review applicable to a trial court’s factual findings involving video evidence:

The trial court remains uniquely situated to evaluate video
evidence in context. For example, after hearing testimony
explaining what a video depicts, the trial court is in a superior
position to resolve disputes about perspective, timing, or events
occurring beyond the scope of the video, to assess witness
credibility and demeanor, and to integrate those findings with any
other evidence presented. The appellate court’s role is to review
whether the trial court’s findings are reasonably supported by the
record, not to reweigh the credibility or effect of visual evidence
itself.

State v. Alvarez-Soto, 579 P.3d 1227, 1234 (Ariz. 2025). We find this rationale
persuasive as to video evidence viewed by juries. Moreover, although the
defendant argues that no credibility determinations were necessary in viewing
the video, we cannot separate the totality of the evidence considered by the jury
— including witness credibility — in reaching its verdict. See State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H. 673, 682 (2005) (stating that jury “observes the witnesses, judges
their credibility and hears their testimony, accepting or rejecting it in whole or
in part” and that “[g]enerally . . . the path a jury follows to a verdict and the
evidence it considers while deliberating are not subject to the court’s control”
(quotations omitted)).

¶7 In arguing for a de novo standard, the defendant points to cases in
which we gave less than ordinary deference to a trial court’s findings based

4
solely on documentary evidence, which he suggests lend support to a de novo
review of the video evidence here. See Masse v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.,
136 N.H. 628, 631-32 (1993); Hillside Assocs. of Hollis, 135 N.H. at 330. We
have clarified, however, that this less stringent standard of review “applies only
when all the evidence presented to the trial court is documentary.” Rye Beach
Country Club v. Town of Rye, 143 N.H. 122, 127-28 (1998) (emphasis added).
Thus, even if video evidence were analogous to documentary evidence, we
would not apply a de novo standard of review when the jury considered both
live testimony and video evidence. Cf. id.; State v. Haley, 141 N.H. 541, 546
(1997) (declining to review de novo trial court’s evidentiary ruling because
ruling was based in part on documents not contained in appeal record). For
these reasons, we decline to accept the defendant’s invitation to adopt a
separate standard of review with respect to video evidence viewed by the jury.

¶8 Having determined the applicable standard for review of the video
evidence, we now consider the defendant’s arguments that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions. A challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence raises a question of law, which we review de novo. Seibel, 174 N.H. at
445. When considering such challenges, we objectively review the entire record
to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, considering the evidence, and all reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State. Id. We examine each
item of evidence in the context of the entire case, and not in isolation. Id.

¶9 A defendant’s intent often must be proved by circumstantial evidence
and may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct under all the circumstances.
State v. Vincelette, 172 N.H. 350, 354 (2019). When the evidence as to an
element of proof is solely circumstantial, it must exclude all reasonable
conclusions except guilt. Id. The proper analysis is not whether the evidence
excludes every possible conclusion consistent with innocence, but whether it
has excluded all reasonable conclusions other than guilt. Seibel, 174 N.H. at
445. We do not determine whether the defendant has suggested another
possible hypothesis that could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
Id. Rather, we evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
and determine whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable
that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. Where solely circumstantial evidence is at issue, the
critical question is whether, assuming all credibility resolutions in favor of the
State, the inferential chain of circumstances is of sufficient strength that guilt
is the sole rational conclusion. Id.

¶10 We first address the defendant’s argument that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for misdemeanor simple assault under
RSA 631:2-a, I(a). To convict the defendant, the State had to prove that the
defendant “[p]urposely or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury or unprivileged
physical contact to another.” RSA 631:2-a, I(a); State v. Cunningham, 159

5
N.H. 103, 107 (2009). “Unprivileged physical contact,” in this context,
“includes all physical contact not justified by law or consent.” State v. Burke, 153 N.H. 361, 364 (2006).

¶11 We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to
find that the defendant committed a simple assault. The officer testified that
the defendant called him a “bitch cop” and warned that he had “better not
disrespect [the defendant].” The officer then ordered the defendant out of the
vehicle. The defendant stepped out of the vehicle and “immediately turned
back towards” the officer and continued yelling at him. The defendant
“squared up,” “balled his right fist,” and “aggressively” stepped toward and
pointed at the officer. The officer testified that the defendant “shoved his finger
into [the officer’s] chest and shoved it.” Based on this evidence, a rational jury
could reasonably conclude that the defendant caused unprivileged physical
contact with the officer and that he did so purposely or knowingly. See RSA
631:2-a, I(a).

¶12 The defendant offers alternative explanations and interpretations of
the evidence that he contends would provide a rational jury with bases to
acquit. We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the defendant
suggests that the evidence failed to establish that he made physical contact
with the officer. He argues that the officer’s testimony regarding the assault
was uncorroborated and points out that the officer initially omitted the assault
from his recitation of the encounter until prompted by the prosecutor. It is well
settled, however, that the jury has substantial latitude in determining the
credibility of witnesses. Gubitosi, 152 N.H. at 680. Even if the officer’s
testimony regarding the contact was not corroborated by other evidence — and
considering other possible explanations for why the contact might have
occurred — the jury was entitled to credit this testimony. See id. at 682 (“[I]t is
the jury which observes the witnesses, judges their credibility and hears their
testimony, accepting or rejecting it in whole or in part.” (quotation omitted)).
The fact that the officer did not initially recount the assault until prompted by
the prosecutor does not mean that the jury could not credit his testimony
regarding the assault.

¶13 Next, the defendant suggests that the evidence failed to establish
that he knowingly made contact with the officer. He argues that the evidence
failed to exclude the reasonable conclusion that any contact between his finger
and the officer was either the result of inadvertent gesticulation or impliedly
consented to by the officer during a heated argument. We determine that the
evidence was sufficient for the jury to reject these conclusions. See id. The
officer testified that the defendant told him he “better not disrespect [the
defendant].” The jury also heard that, after the defendant exited the vehicle,
the officer told the defendant to back away from the officer, and that the
defendant did not do so. Then, as the defendant “was pointing and yelling at
[the officer], he shoved his finger into [the officer’s] chest.” Viewing all the

6
evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the State, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found
that the sole rational conclusion was that the defendant purposely or
knowingly caused unprivileged physical contact with the officer by, as alleged
in the complaint, “put[ting] his left index finger onto [the officer’s] chest and
then shov[ing] it into him.” See Seibel, 174 N.H. at 445.

¶14 We next address the defendant’s argument that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for resisting arrest under RSA 642:2. To
convict the defendant, the State had to prove that the defendant “knowingly or
purposely physically interfere[d] with a person recognized to be a law
enforcement official . . . seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the
[defendant].” RSA 642:2.

¶15 We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to
find that the defendant physically interfered with the officer’s efforts to arrest
him by, as alleged in the complaint, “pulling away, squaring off, and then
struggling to get away.” The officer testified that when he told the defendant he
was under arrest — “roughly” at the same time he grabbed the defendant’s
wrist — the defendant “pulled away,” the officer felt “[the defendant’s] muscles
tightening,” and the defendant turned towards the officer. The officer then
brought the defendant to the ground and began handcuffing him with the
assistance of the backup officer who had arrived on scene to assist. The officer
testified that “it took quite some time” to lock the handcuffs because the
defendant “was still struggling with his arms” and that his “thrashing” and
“wiggling” made it difficult to secure the handcuff lock. The jury also heard
testimony from the backup officer, who testified that he believed the defendant
“was tensing up” and “clenching” his hands while being handcuffed, and that
the process took “not a normal amount of time.” In addition to this testimony,
the jury reviewed and considered these events as they were depicted on the
video. Based on this evidence, a rational jury could have found that the
defendant physically resisted the officer’s attempts to arrest him. See RSA
642:2. A reasonable jury could also have found that the sole rational
conclusion based on the evidence was that the defendant acted knowingly or
purposely. See 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)).

¶16 The defendant again offers alternative explanations and
interpretations of the evidence that he contends would provide a rational jury
with bases to acquit. The defendant argues that the officer grabbed him and
threw him to the ground before the defendant understood that he was being
placed under arrest, and the evidence thus did not establish that he knowingly
resisted arrest. The defendant also argues that the evidence failed to establish
that his physical movements amounted to actual interference with the arrest.

7
He contends that the evidence on these issues did not exclude all reasonable
conclusions other than guilt.

¶17 Again, we defer to the jury’s judgment on such matters as resolving
conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of the witnesses, and
determining the weight to be given evidence. See Gubitosi, 152 N.H. at 680,
682. The jury heard testimony that the officer told the defendant he was under
arrest as — or right before — the officer grabbed the defendant’s wrist. The
jury also heard testimony that the defendant was “struggling” while being
handcuffed and that his “thrashing and wiggling” made it “quite difficult” to
secure the lock, and that the process took “not a normal amount of time for
just an arrest.” In conjunction with this testimony, the jury also saw the video
depicting the defendant’s arrest. We conclude that the defendant’s proffered
conclusions are not sufficiently reasonable that the jury could not have found
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Seibel, 174 N.H. at 445.

¶18 Lastly, the defendant argues that his actions amounted to de
minimis conduct for the purposes of both charges. We note that this argument
is not preserved, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48 (2003), and does not
constitute plain error, see State v. Ortiz, 162 N.H. 585, 591 (2011) (“For the
purposes of the plain error rule, an error is plain if it was or should have been
obvious in the sense that the governing law was clearly settled to the
contrary.”); State v. Scott Chandler, No. 2021-0515 (non-precedential order at
1-2), 2022 WL 18427405 (N.H. Sept. 27, 2022) (concluding there was no plain
error when trial court did not dismiss resisting arrest charge based on
defendant’s argument that his conduct amounted to de minimis act of physical
interference).

Affirmed.

MACDONALD, C.J., and DONOVAN and GOULD, JJ., concurred.