DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Kiluk, 410 A.2d 648.

15 citing documents.

  • State v. Dorrance 70 A.3d 451 N.H. 2013
    Similarly, in State v. Kiluk, we held that a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty of causing serious bodily injury when the victim had wounds requiring seven stitches and a scratched eyeball resulting in blurred vision.
  • State v. Scognamiglio 842 A.2d 109 N.H. 2004
    “In ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence, we must decide whether, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found this element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4 (1980).
  • State v. Hull 827 A.2d 1001 N.H. 2003
    See, e.g., In re Justin D., 144 N.H. 450 (1999) (multiple rolls of reinforced coins become dangerous weapons when swung at someone’s head); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1 (1980) (dinner fork becomes a deadly weapon when it is used to stab someone in the eye); State v. Piper, 117 N.H. 64 (1977) (belt buckle becomes dangerous weapon when blade is attached and it is swung at someone).
  • State v. Beaupre 529 A.2d 944 N.H. 1987
    RSA 631:1 creates the offense of first degree assault, which may be committed in different ways.
  • State v. Shannon 484 A.2d 1164 N.H. 1984
    The State cites State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 410 A.2d 648 (1980), as authority for its position.
  • State v. Plaut 474 A.2d 587 N.H. 1984
    We hold that this testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the verdict, and that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim had suffered “serious bodily injury.” See State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980).
  • State v. Benson 474 A.2d 576 N.H. 1984
    Harley Norris undoubtedly suffered “serious bodily injury.” See State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980).
  • State v. Thaxton 455 A.2d 1016 N.H. 1982
    State v. Lister, 122 N.H. 603, 607, 448 A.2d 395, 398 (1982); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 3, 410 A.2d 648, 649-50 (1980).
  • State v. Reardon 431 A.2d 796 N.H. 1981
    State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980); see State v. Scarlett, 121 N.H. 37, 40, 426 A.2d 25, 27 (1981).
  • State v. Gilbert 429 A.2d 323 N.H. 1981
    Finally, we conclude that “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found [the existence of a conspiracy] beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).
  • State v. Ebelt 427 A.2d 29 N.H. 1981
    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 (1979); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980).
  • State v. Scarlett 426 A.2d 25 N.H. 1981
    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 4, 410 A.2d 648, 650 (1980).
  • Followed State v. Hardy 419 A.2d 398 N.H. 1980
    In determining this issue, we follow the test laid down in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
  • State v. Novosel 412 A.2d 739 N.H. 1980
    Moore v. Duckworth, 99 S. Ct. 3088 (1979); see Jackson v. Virginia, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 410 A.2d 648 (1980).
  • State v. Fraser 411 A.2d 1125 N.H. 1980
    Jackson v. Virginia, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Kiluk, 120 N.H. 1, 410 A.2d 648 (1980).