Cited by

State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330 (1973) (noting that the fact finder “may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences, provided that they can be reasonably drawn therefrom”).

In addressing the burden of proof in criminal cases, we have said that “[t]he State need not prove each evidentiary fact beyond a reasonable doubt, but, rather, ‘[t]he decisive issue is whether on all the evidence, guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985) (quoting State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973)).

Evidence pertaining to motive is admissible, id., and “evidence of the conduct of an accused at or near the time of the alleged offense if relevant is also admissible even though another crime is involved.” State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 332, 306 A.2d 793, 796 (1973).

“[Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973).

State v. *314 Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973) (evidentiary fact relied upon by the State need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Burley, 95 N.H. 77, 79, 57 A.2d 618, 619 (1948) (mere evidentiary facts need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt since evidence of such facts is to be weighed for what it is wort

1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 170, at 317-18 (13th ed. C. Torcia 1972); see also State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 332, 306 A.2d 793, 796 (1973).

It is well established that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant the finding by a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State is correct in its assertion that the jury “[m]ay draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences provided that they can reasonably be drawn therefrom.” State v. Taylor, 118 N.H. 855, 859, 395 A.2d 505, 507 (1978); State v. Lovett, 116 N.H. 571, 573, 364 A.2d 880, 882 (1975); State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973).

Although the State must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all the essential elements, it may rely on circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence.

“The trier may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences, provided that they can reasonably be drawn *858 therefrom.” State v. Lovett, 116 N.H. 571, 573, 364 A.2d 880, 882 (1976); State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973).

State v. Ballentine, 116 N.H. 120, 352 A.2d 403 (1976); State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973); State v. Garceau, 108 N.H. 209, 231 A.2d 625 (1967); see C. McCormick, Evidence § 190 (2d ed. 1972); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 240 (13th ed. 1972).

State v. Keyser, 117 N.H. 45, 369 A.2d 224 (1977); State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973).

We have reviewed the trial transcript and conclude that, although the evidence is circumstantial, it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973); State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 294 A.2d 382 (1972).

329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973); State v. Freije, 109 N.H. 290, 249 A.2d 683 (1969); State v. Garceau, 108 N.H. 209, 231 A.2d 625 (1967).

It is also the law that “the trier may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences, provided that they can be reasonably drawn....” State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 330, 306 A.2d 793, 795 (1973).

State v. Wrenn, 77 N.H. 361, 92 A. 170 (1914); State v. Palumbo, 113 N.H. 329, 306 A.2d 793 (1973); 21 C.J.S.