Cited by

without serious bodily injury,” id., factor as “an element that must be proven by the State and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant may be sentenced for a class A felony.” See State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 154 (1985) (holding that “[a] defendant is guilty of the class A felony of kidnapping only if the jury finds that the evidence establishes both the class B felony of kidnapping as defined in RSA 633:1, I, and the elements of a class A felony set forth in RSA 633:1,

We described the two-step analysis as follows in State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146 (1985): *374 Initially, we inquire into whether the identification procedure was impermissibly or unnecessarily suggestive.

“This burden of a defendant who appeals his conviction is heavy.” State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 152 (1985).

Generally, decisions relating to pretrial discovery matters are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

State v. Atkins, 145 N.H. 256, 257-58 (2000); State v. Bruneau, 131 N.H. 104, 115 (1988); State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 150 (1985); see also Luce v. U.S., 469 U.S. 38, 41-43 (1984).

II We first address the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions under New Hampshire law.

The jury is free to accept or reject any portion of a witness’s testimony and to resolve any conflicts in testimony.

State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 152, 497 A.2d 1224, 1230 (1985); State v. Arthur, 118 N.H. 561, 564, 391 A.2d 884, 886 (1978).

Morrill v. Tilney, 128 N.H. 773, 778, 519 A.2d 293, 296 (1986) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Simpson, 133 N.H. at 707, 582 A.2d at 621; State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 153, 497 A.2d 1224, 1230-31 (1985).

That three young children may disagree in their respective recollections of specific assaults they experienced and observed does not compel a finding that the evidence was legally insufficient.

State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 152, 497 A.2d 1224, 1230 (1985); State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472, 475, 416 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1980).

Although he relies, rather, on cases exemplified by State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 497 A.2d 1224 (1985), they are not in point.

State v. LaRose, 127 N.H. 146, 150, 497 A.2d 1224, 1228 (1985) (no inquiry into possible prejudice from ruling allowing State to impeach by prior conviction where defendant does not take stand); Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 43 (1984).

Following a challenge to the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the trial court must determine whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive in pointing to the defendant and, if so, whether that suggestiveness rendered the identification unreliable.

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction, this court will consider all of the evidence produced at trial, with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State.