the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence State’s Exhibit 1, consisting of a photograph of the latent print and the defendant’s known print. We must, however, address the defendant’s argument that the evidence presented to the trial court was insufficient to reach a guilty verdict because, if the evidence were insufficient, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions would preclude a remand for a new trial. State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 672-73 (2005). Ill In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict, we consider all the evidence, including evidence that we have concluded was erroneously admitted. State v. Horak, 159 N.H. 576, 582-83 (2010); Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 34 (1988) (<HOLDING>). To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency
holding that the jeopardy clause bars retrial when the prosecution failed to supply sufficient evidence to merit conviction holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence holding that the double jeopardy clause bars retrial when the commonwealth intentionally undertakes to prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted holding that where the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court  whether erroneously or not  would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial