State v. Saunders, 164 N.H. 342

Saunders was convicted as an accomplice to first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, theft by unauthorized taking, and theft by misapplication of property in a jury trial.
The victim, Saunders's boyfriend David King, was murdered in Saunders's Dover home; King was shot in the basement with accompanying wounds.
Derek and Scott Mazzone were identified as planning participants; Derek is Roy Saunders's son, Saunders's ex-husband; Roy Saunders funded but later withdrew the money.
Key indicia placed Saunders at the scene and involved a plan to murder King so Saunders could relocate to Texas; Derek and Mazzone carried out the shooting and stabbing.
Police obtained Saunders's verbal and written consent to search Saunders's home and vehicles; the search was supported by a warrant and later challenged as overbroad.
Saunders moved to Texas after the incident and was arrested in July 2009; on appeal she asserted errors in jury instruction, consent scope, and warrant constitutionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional effect of the burden instruction	Saunders: instruction diluted Winship burden.	Saunders: instruction improperly lowered standard.	Instruction error; not reversible due to overall charge and multiple correct instructions.
Scope of consent to search	Only a limited search was consented to; investigation scope exceeded.	Consent covered general search of home and vehicles.	Consent to general search was valid; no suppression required.
Warrant and constitutionality of the search	Overbreadth and lack of specificity in warrant invalid.	Consent negates warrant issues; warrant unnecessary to suppress.	Arguments waived; not reached; suppression not required given valid consent.

State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832 (1978) (burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; standard instruction)
State v. Davidson, 163 N.H. 462 (2012) (jury instructions reviewed in context; discretion in drafting instructions)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (due process and sufficiency standards; State vs federal alignment)
State v. LaBarre, 160 N.H. 1 (2010) (unreasonable searches; consent exceptions)
State v. Coyman, 130 N.H. 815 (1988) (consent scope and search limitations)
State v. Pinder, 126 N.H. 220 (1985) (scope of consent and determining reasonableness)
State v. Graham, 142 N.H. 357 (1997) (standard for circumstantial evidence in sufficiency review)
State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456 (2007) (contextual sufficiency guidance with mixed direct/circumstantial evidence)
Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973) (structural review of jury instructions; overall charge)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (due process and reasonable-doubt standard interpretation)
Kennedy, 391 N.E.2d 290 (1979) (circumstantial evidence reasoning and potential inferential pitfalls)
Graham, 142 N.H. 357 (1997) (see above)