Cited by

See, e.g., State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 17 (1982) (“It is well established in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction if it excludes all other rational conclusions.”).

1 See State v. *352 Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 17 (1982) (“It is well established in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction if it excludes all other rational conclusions.”); accord State v. McCue, 134 N.H.. 94, 104 (1991).

State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 16 (1982) (no error in failing to instruct jury on issue not in dispute).

The trial court’s “primary duty” in instructing the jury is not merely to explain the elements of the offense, see State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982), but also to clarify the pertinent “issues of the case, to assist the jury in understanding the questions to be resolved.” State v. King, 136 N.H. 674, 677, 621 A.2d 921, 923 (1993) (quotation omitted).

“A trial judge’s primary duty in charging the jury is to clarify the issues of the case, and to assist the jury in understanding the questions to be resolved.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982); see Poulin v. Provost, 114 N.H. 263, 264, 319 A.2d 296, 297 (1974).

“A trial judge’s primary duty in charging the jury is to clarify the issues of the case, and to assist the jury in understanding the questions to be resolved.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

“A requested charge on a party’s theory of defense must be given if such theory is supported by some evidence,” State v. Guaraldi, 124 N.H. 93, 97, 467 A.2d 233, 235 (1983) (quoting State v. Aubert, 120 N.H. 634, 635, 421 A.2d 124, 125 (1980)), but reversal of a jury verdict is unwarranted when a jury charge “fairly covers the issues and law of a case,” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

State v. Amell, 131 N.H. 309, 311, 553 A.2d 286, 288 (1988); State v. Bird, 122 *384 N.H. 10, 17, 440 A.2d 441, 445 (1982).

State v. Dennehy, 127 N.H. 425, 430, 503 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (citations omitted); State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

Without evidence to support the defense, however, jury instructions are not grounds for reversal if read as a whole they fairly cover the issues of law in the case.

Gagnon v. *90 Crane, 126 N.H. 781, 788, 498 A.2d 718, 723 (1985); State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

State v. Saucier, 128 N.H. 291, 299, 512 A.2d 1120, 1126 (1986); State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

That is, a theory of defense is a proposition about the legal significance of claimed facts, and it thus falls within the scope of a judge’s responsibility *118 to instruct the jury on the law.

“A trial judge’s primary duty in charging the jury is to clarify the issues of the case, and to assist the jury in understanding the questions to be resolved.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

In reviewing disputed jury instructions, we will determine their propriety by considering them in their entirety.

The defendant argues that the court thereby failed to honor its obligation to clarify the issues by explaining the law in straightforward language related to the evidence and claims of the case.

Because the instructions, taken as a whole, were sufficient, see State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982); Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973); United States v. Gibson, 726 F.2d 869, 874 (1st Cir. 1984), we find that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

Moreover, “[t]he standard of our review of a trial judge’s instruction to the jury is well settled: We must determine whether the disputed jury instruction, in the context of the instructions as a whole, fairly covers the issue and law of the case.” State v. Sadvari, 123 N.H. 410, 414, 462 A.2d 102, 104 (1983) (citing State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982)).

We agree with the defendant that “[a] trial judge’s primary duty in charging the jury is to clarify the issues of the case, and to assist the jury in understanding the questions to be resolved,” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982), and that the court must instruct the jury fully and correctly as to the law applicable to the case.

A. Grindle The defendant alleges that the jury instructions were incorrect as a matter of law.

“It is well established in this State that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction if it excludes all other rational conclusions.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 17, 440 A.2d 441, 445 (1982); see State v. O’Malley, 120 N.H. 507, 509, 416 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1980).

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).

State v. Merski, 123 N.H. 564, 569, 465 A.2d 491, 495 (1983); State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 17, 440 A.2d 441, 445 (1982).

State v. Allard, 123 N.H. 209, 214, 459 A.2d 259, 263 (1983); State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982); State v. Weitzman, 121 N.H. 83, 91, 427 A.2d 3, 8 (1981).

Viewed in its entirety, the court’s charge fairly covered the law as to reasonable doubt.

The standard of our review of a trial judge’s instruction to the jury is well settled: We must determine whether the disputed jury instruction, in the context of the instructions as a whole, fairly covers the issue and law of the case.

Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction if it excludes all other rational conclusions.

in terms of visibility or distance and the like, and whether the witness had known or observed the person at earlier times.” We are satisfied that the trial court “stated the applicable law in clear and definite language.” State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 15, 440 A.2d 441, 443 (1982).

The court also gave the jury a correct definition of the statutory phrase “serious bodily injury.” Cf. State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 10, 16, 440 A.2d 441, 444 (1982).

State v. Bird, 122 N.H. 440 A.2d 441, 444 (1982); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979).