Cited by

State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189 (1985) (“In order for the State to convict on the charge of receiving stolen property, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was stolen, that the defendant possessed the property, that he believed the property was stolen, and that he intended to deprive the owners of the property.”).

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

RSA 637:7, I. To secure a conviction, the State must prove that a defendant possessed property of another which he knew was stolen or believed was probably stolen, and that he did so with the purpose to deprive the rightful owner of its possession.

State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

Additionally, the jury is permitted to “draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of othér inferences.” State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985) (quotation omitted).

In addition, the jury “may draw reasonable inferences from facts proved and also inferences from facts found as a result of other inferences.” State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985) (quotation omitted).

When we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the State, State v. Hunter, 132 N.H. 556, 561, 567 A.2d 564, 567 (1989), asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985) (quoting United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1965)).

*561 In determining the sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

In determining the sufficiency of evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

considering whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for second degree assault, this court must determine whether any “rational trier of fact, while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Steer, 128 N.H. 490, 492, 517 A.2d 797, 799 (1986) (quoting State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985)).

We begin by noting that in a challenge based on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the standard of review is whether or not a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, after viewing the evidence and all inferences reasonably derivable therefrom in the light most favorable to the State.

The court’s long-standing standard of review in reference to such claims is whether any “rational trier of fact, while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Stauff, 126 N.H. 186, 189, 489 A.2d 140, 142 (1985).

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)).