State of New Hampshire v. James F. Houghton, 168 N.H. 269

In Aug. 2011 police seized the defendant James F. Houghton’s laptop pursuant to a search warrant; 23 digital images/movies were charged as separate counts of possession of child pornography under RSA 649-A:3.
At trial the State introduced exhibits 1–23; defendant moved to dismiss counts based on exhibits 11, 13, and 15 for insufficiency of proof that subjects were under 18; the trial court denied the motion.
The jury convicted on all 23 counts; defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence that subjects in exhibits 1–15 were under 18, and that exhibit 3 did not show "sexually explicit conduct."
The defendant conceded exhibits 16–23 clearly showed underage subjects and did not contest those convictions on appeal.
The Supreme Court reviewed sufficiency de novo for preserved claims and applied plain-error review for unpreserved claims; it assessed whether images alone (circumstantial evidence) could prove age beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Houghton)	Held
Sufficiency that exhibits 1–15 depict persons under 18	Images and contextual indicia suffice for a rational juror to find subjects under 18	Images are pixelated/obscured or show mature development; insufficient to prove age beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed convictions for exhibits 4,5,6,8,13,14, reversed for 1,2,3,7,9,10,11,12,15 (total 9 reversed)
Sufficiency challenge preserved for exhibits 11,13,15 (motion to dismiss)	N/A (State relied on images)	Preserved insufficiency motion for those exhibits	Reversed convictions based on exhibits 11 and 15; affirmed for 13
Sufficiency challenge unpreserved for remaining exhibits 1–10,12,14	N/A (State relied on images and some contextual clues)	Plain-error review: images insufficient for several exhibits	Under plain-error review, reversed convictions for exhibits 1,2,3,7,9,10,12; affirmed for 4,5,6,8,14
Whether exhibit 3 depicts "sexually explicit conduct"	Exhibit 3 is sexually explicit	Exhibit 3 insufficient as to age so statutory conduct need not be addressed	Not reached — conviction for exhibit 3 reversed on age sufficiency grounds

State v. Francis, 167 N.H. 598 (discussing standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237 (de novo review for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Zubhuza, 166 N.H. 125 (when evidence is solely circumstantial it must exclude reasonable conclusions other than guilt)
State v. Cobb, 143 N.H. 638 (trier of fact may determine age from photographs using everyday observations)
State v. Clark, 158 N.H. 13 (State need not produce evidence beyond images to prove depiction of real children)
State v. Guay, 162 N.H. 375 (plain error standard and its limited use)
State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416 (prejudice/substantial-rights prong for plain error requires showing outcome affected)
State v. Perry, 166 N.H. 716 (issues not briefed are waived)
State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832 (model reasonable doubt instruction referenced)

Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded for resentencing.