Opinion ID: 1887538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant next asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss all of the indictments on the ground that the State failed to prove that particular acts of sexual assault occurred during the time frames specified in the indictments. Because the defendant chose to present a case after unsuccessfully moving to dismiss, the issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence and we review the entire trial record to make that determination. State v. Cunningham, 159 N.H. 103, 106-08, 977 A.2d 506, 509 (2009). To prevail in his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant had to prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416, 424, 839 A.2d 8 (2003). The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because, on cross-examination, the victim was unable to recall any of the time frames of the alleged assaults or what details she gave to police investigators. Additionally, he contends that the evidence was insufficient because the victim's allegations changed over time. He argues, by contrast, that he testified in his own defense and offered evidence countering every one of the allegations made by the alleged victim. The defendant's arguments go to the victim's credibility and the proper weight to be given to the evidence, questions which were for the jury to resolve. See State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456, 465, 937 A.2d 938 (2007). The jury was free to accept or reject any portion of the victim's testimony in its deliberations. See State v. Hull, 149 N.H. 706, 712, 827 A.2d 1001 (2003). When there is conflicting factual testimony, we defer to the findings of the jury unless no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion. Id. The defendant mistakenly contends that the evidence against him was solely circumstantial, which would require that we examine whether it excluded all rational conclusions except guilt. See Evans, 150 N.H. at 424, 839 A.2d 8. To the contrary, in this case, the victim presented direct evidence of the assaults. See State v. Newcomb, 140 N.H. 72, 80-81, 663 A.2d 613 (1995) (defining direct and circumstantial evidence).