A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Seibel, 174 N.H. 440, 445 (2021). To prevail upon a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must demonstrate 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.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Seibel, 174 N.H. 440, 445 (2021). When considering such challenges, we objectively review the entire record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the State.