State v. Germain, 165 N.H. 350

Germain appealed his conviction for criminal threatening with a deadly weapon following a jury trial in NH Superior Court.
The State alleged Germain displayed a firearm during a February 22, 2011 confrontation with the Calleys at a Concord apartment.
Three witnesses described Germain's conduct and the gun; the Ruger found on Germain the next day matched descriptions.
The trial court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of direct evidence that the weapon was a firearm.
The jury convicted Germain of criminal threatening and acquitted him of assault.
Germain challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the circumstantial-evidence instruction surrounding the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to prove the weapon was a firearm, not a pellet gun?	Germain; the evidence relied on circumstantial inferences	Germain; pellet gun could explain the scenes and later possession of Ruger	Evidence supports firearm inference; jury could find beyond reasonable doubt
Should the circumstantial-evidence rule be required and how should it be instructed?	State; circumstantial evidence requires exclusion of reasonable hypotheses of innocence	Germain; rule should be abandoned or not applied when direct evidence exists	Court clarifies and approves model circumstantial-evidence instruction when element is solely circumstantial; applies standard of excluding all reasonable conclusions other than guilt

State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342 (2012) (circumstantial evidence may prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Crie, 154 N.H. 403 (2006) (circumstantial evidence may support a conviction)
State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301 (1972) (no direct evidence required; circumstantial evidence allowed; weigh total evidence)
State v. Laudarowicz, 142 N.H. 1 (1997) (when relying on circumstantial evidence, must show exclusion of reasonable innocence hypotheses)
State v. Beaudette, 124 N.H. 579 (1984) (pellet gun not a firearm; relevant to whether pellet gun suffices as deadly weapon)
State v. Schulz, 164 N.H. 217 (2012) (BB guns; discussed deadly weapon considerations in certain contexts)
Captainville v. State, 448 So. 2d 676 (La. 1984) (circumstantial-evidence instruction for reasonable doubt)
O’Laughlin v. O’Brien, 568 F.3d 287 (1st Cir. 2009) (beyond a reasonable doubt standard; interpretation of circumstantial evidence)
State v. McCue, 134 N.H. 94 (1991) (sufficiency review; credibly resolves conflicts in testimony to prove guilt)