State v. Hill, 42 A.3d 842

Defendant Glendon Hill was convicted in Superior Court of aggravated felonious sexual assault under RSA 632-A:2, I (2007).
The only State evidence at trial was the defendant's young step-daughter's testimony alleging various sexual abuses.
Defense moved to dismiss at end of State's case, arguing the questioning was so leading as to preclude proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the court denied.
The jury convicted Hill; he did not present substantial post-trial motions.
On appeal, Hill challenged the verdict as being against the weight of the evidence; the State contends the challenge was not preserved for review.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding the weight-of-the-evidence challenge was not properly preserved and describing the standards for sufficiency vs weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the weight-of-the-evidence challenge preserved for review?	Hill argues the verdict weighs against the evidence.	Hill contends preservation requirement met by post-verdict motion to set aside.	Not preserved; review declined.
What is the proper remedy and standard for weight-of-evidence challenges?	Weight challenge allows new trial if evidence weighs heavily.	Acquittal not appropriate; standard differs from sufficiency.	Weight challenges require a motion to set aside after verdict; remedy is new trial.

State v. Evans, 150 N.H. 416 (2003) (sufficiency review requires rational-juror standard)
State v. Moscone, 161 N.H. 355 (2011) (directed-verdict timing for sufficiency review)
State v. Ward, 134 N.H. 626 (1991) (timing of sufficiency challenge (close of State's case))
In re Three Video Poker Machines, 129 N.H. 416 (1987) (framework for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Littlefield, 152 N.H. 331 (2005) (full-trial record reviewed when defendant presents evidence)
State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456 (2007) (weight-of-evidence motion viewed as ‘thirteenth juror’)