Opinion ID: 4647329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Accomplice to Criminal Mischief

Text: We next address the accomplice to criminal mischief charge, which required the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, acting with the purpose that the crime of criminal mischief be committed, in 4 concert with or aiding her boyfriend, and “having no right to do [so] or any reasonable basis for belief of having such a right[,] purposely caused pecuniary loss in excess of 100 dollars” by “causing bullets to be [discharged] by means of a firearm at a vehicle occupied by [the victim].” See RSA 626:8, III(a) (defining elements of accomplice liability); RSA 634:2, I, II-a (defining criminal mischief). The defendant contends that to prove pecuniary loss over $100, the State had to provide evidence “as to what it would cost to repair the damage to the truck,” such as a repair estimate. The defendant asserts that it was insufficient for the State to “produce evidence that the vehicle was damaged” because “such evidence does not prove pecuniary loss.” To the contrary, the State could prove that the damage to the truck caused pecuniary loss of more than $100 through circumstantial evidence. “When the State must prove the value of property in order to bring a crime within the ambit of a particular criminal statute, any evidence from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer value is admissible.” State v. Paris, 137 N.H. 322, 327 (1993) (quotation omitted). Such evidence “need not be infallible.” Id. To the extent that the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have inferred that the damage to the truck was more than $100, we disagree. Here, in addition to testimony describing the damage to the truck, the jury was afforded a view of the damaged truck and was shown photographs of it. Although the photographs have not been provided as part of the appellate record, viewing the trial testimony in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have inferred that the truck sustained more than $100 in damage. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004) (“It is the burden of the appealing party . . . to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal . . . .”).