Cited by

“It is a well-established rule of criminal law in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant the finding by a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 302 (1972).

“Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of the truth of the fact sought to be proved.” Id.

Looking at the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom,” State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 872-73, 379 A.2d 813, 818 (1977) (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975), itself quoting State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972)), we conclude that the record reveals sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction.

State v. Wayne Kelley, 120 N.H. 14, 16, 413 A.2d 300, 302 (1980); State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 302, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).

State v. Benson, 124 N.H. 767, 769, 474 A.2d 576, 577 (1984); State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).

Considering this evidence ‘“in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom,”’ State v. Holt, 124 N.H. 645, 647, 474 A.2d 1031, 1033 (1984) (quoting State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972)), the jury could reasonably infer that the affected portions of the victim’s body were sore and therefore injured as alleged.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this circumstantial evidence precludes all conclusions other than that the defendant participated in the planning and execution of the robbery and was aware that weapons were used.

Recklessly causes bodily injury to another by means of a deadly weapon....” On review, we consider the evidence, with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State, State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972), and then “decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 17, 440 A.2d 441, 445 (1982); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1978).

“[o]n review, the evidence must be considered ‘in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.’” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975) (quoting State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972)).

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of the truth of the fact sought to be proved.

“State v. Dupuy, 118 N.H. 848, 395 A.2d 851 (1978); State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).

The established rule is that on review the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.” State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972); accord, State v. Breest, 116 N.H. 734, 367 A.2d 1320 (1976).

It is well settled in this state that when reviewing evidence for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the evidence must be taken “ ‘in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.’ State v. Canney, 112 N.H, 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975).

304, 100 F.2d 714 (1938); see Annot., 88 A.L.R.2d 852, 877 (1963); R. Perkins, Criminal Law 465 n.3 (1969).

Viewed in a light most favorable to the State (State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972)), the jury could find the following: At about 9:30 p.m., on the night of March 26, 1974, a house located in Harrisville and owned by Wellington Wells, was burglarized.

It is true that circumstantial evidence can support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

On review, the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.” State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).

Nevertheless any element of the offense can be proved by circumstantial evidence.” State v. Wills, 107 N.H. 107, 108, 218 A.2d 47, 48 (1966); see State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972).

In State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972), we said that “It is within the province of the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the facts proved.

State v. Casey supra; State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972); State v. Grodkiewicz, 16 Ill.

knowing the same to be false, counterfeited, or altered, with intent that any person may be defrauded, he shall be imprisoned not more than five years.” As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the law is well established in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.