Opinion ID: 4647329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accomplice to Attempted First Degree Assault

Text: We first address the charge of accomplice to attempted first degree assault, which required the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, acting with the purpose that the crime of first degree assault be committed, and acting in concert with or aiding her boyfriend, caused “six bullets to be discharged by means of a deadly weapon, a firearm, in the direction of [the victim],” which “under the circumstances that [she] believed them to be constituted a substantial step towards the commission of the crime” of first degree assault. See RSA 626:8, III(a) (defining elements of accomplice liability); RSA 629:1, I (defining an attempt to commit a crime); RSA 631:1, I(b) (defining first degree assault by means of a deadly weapon). The defendant asserts that the State failed to produce any direct evidence showing that her actions aided her boyfriend in causing six bullets to be discharged from his firearm. She further argues that the circumstantial evidence introduced by the State was insufficient because “an alternative reasonable conclusion consistent with innocence exists.” See Saintil-Brown, 172 N.H. at 117 (discussing the defendant’s burden when the evidence as to one or more elements of an offense is solely circumstantial). The defendant 3 contends that her boyfriend “could have discharged the firearm for any number of reasons, none of which were impacted by [her] actions.” We agree with the State that the evidence on this element was not solely circumstantial, but rather included both direct and circumstantial evidence. See id. at 117-18. “Direct evidence is evidence which, if accepted as true, directly proves the fact for which it is offered, without the need for the factfinder to draw any inferences.” State v. Kelley, 159 N.H. 449, 454 (2009) (quotation omitted). Direct evidence includes “the testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of facts about the crime charged such as an eyewitness.” Id. (quotation omitted). In this case, the defendant’s testimony regarding her actions and her observations of her boyfriend’s actions constitutes direct evidence. When, as here, the proof involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, a sufficiency challenge must fail if the evidence, including the jury’s credibility determinations, is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the evidence would support a rational conclusion other than guilt if the jury had resolved credibility issues differently. Saintil-Brown, 172 N.H. at 117-18. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that it was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in concert with or aided her boyfriend in causing six bullets to be discharged from his firearm. The jury heard evidence that the defendant’s boyfriend grabbed his gun after she told him to do so. As well, the jury heard evidence that the defendant chased after the victim after she heard him leave the house, and that her boyfriend followed soon thereafter. The jury also heard evidence that after the defendant yelled at her boyfriend to “shoot,” the victim heard a very loud noise, saw a puff of smoke, and realized that someone was shooting at him. The jury heard the defendant’s 911 call to the police in which she identified her boyfriend as the only person who fired a gun during the incident, as well as her police interview in which she said that her boyfriend fired approximately four rounds of ammunition “towards the [victim’s] tire area.” In addition, a police officer who responded to the scene testified that the victim’s boyfriend identified himself as the shooter. Six shell casings were found on the ground near the telephone pole into which the victim had driven the truck. From this evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in concert with or aided her boyfriend in causing six bullets to be fired from his firearm.