Cited by

State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650 (1987) (defendant unable to prove prejudice in arson case where building destroyed, but he had access to notes and photographs prepared by State’s experts).

The jury could infer a culpable mental state from the defendant’s attempts to deceive the police.

If the State carries that burden, the defendant may not claim any relief unless he demonstrates that the lost evidence was material, to the degree that its introduction would probably have led to a verdict of not guilty, and that its loss prejudiced him by precluding the introduction of evidence that would probably have led to a verdict in his favor.” *95 State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 648, 531 A.2d 323, 325 (1987) (citations omitted).

In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant carries the burden of proving that “no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987).

We will not disturb the defendant’s conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence unless “no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found *637 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Evans, 134 N.H. 378, 383, 594 A.2d 154, 158 (1991) (quotation omitted); State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987).

State v. Amell, 131 N.H. 309, 311, 553 A.2d 286, 288 (1988) (appropriate to infer guilt when evidence excludes other reasonable conclusions); State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650-51, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987) (inference of guilt from defendant’s attempt to cover-up crime).

The familiar standard of review on such claims places the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that “no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987).

However; “[t]he rational trier [of fact] is, of course, entitled to infer guilt from circumstantial evidence that excludes all other rational conclusions.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987) (citation omitted).

On appeal, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to prevail on this issue, the burden rests with Mr. Baird “to demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987), quoted *641 in State v. Guglielmo, 130 N.H. 240, 244, 544 A.2d 25, 28 (1987); State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321, 326, 565 A.2d 1035, 1038 (1989).

Once a defendant demonstrates that the State has failed to preserve apparently relevant evidence, the State has the burden of showing that it acted in good faith, in the sense that it had no intent to prejudice the defendant, and that it also acted without culpable negligence, State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 648, 531 A.2d 323, 325 (1987), which we have defined as “less than gross negligence but more than ordinary negligence,” State v. Reynolds, 131 N.H. 291, 294, 556 A.2d 298, 299 (1988).

State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650-51, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987) (jury may infer guilt from inconsistencies and contradictions in defendant’s statements and testimony).

For this court to overturn the trial court’s decision, the defendant must establish “that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” See State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987); see also State v. Smith, 127 N.H. 433, 436, 503 A.2d 774, 776 (1985).

It should be noted at the outset that the defendant at no time argues that police reports were, in fact, prepared and that relevant evidence was thus lost or destroyed to his detriment.

In an appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that “‘no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Guay, 130 N.H. 413, 421-22, 543 A.2d 910, 915 (1988) (quoting State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987)).

(Citation omitted.)” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 648, 531 A.2d 323, 325 (1987).

In a sufficiency of the evidence argument, “the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. *422 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 327 (1987); accord State v. Meaney, 129 N.H. 448, 450, 529 A.2d 384, 386 (1987).

On appeal, “the defendánt has the burden to demonstrate that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Murray, 129 N.H. 645, 650, 531 A.2d 323, 325 (1987); State v. Smith, 127 N.H. 433, 436, 503 A.2d 774, 776 (1985); accord, State v. Meloon, 124 N.H. 257, 259, 469 A.2d 1316, 1318 (1983).