Court Opinion

ID: 9699709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:47:38.124269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:56.084463
License: Public Domain

Bois, J., with whom Brock, J.,
joins, dissenting: I cannot accept the majority’s conclusion that accompaniment and observation are insufficient acts to constitute “aid” under the accomplice liability statute, RSA 626:8 111(a). Although I agree that “mere presence” would be an insufficient factual allegation, see State v. Goodwin, 118 N.H. 862, 866, 395 A.2d 1234, 1236 (1978), the indictment in this case alleged more than “mere presence.” As the majority concedes, the indictment alleged the requisite mens rea. It also alleged accompaniment, which connotes presence and some further connection between the accomplice and the principal. While not a customary form of assistance, “accompaniment with the purpose of aiding” implies the furnishing of moral support and encouragement in the performance of a crime, thereby “aiding” a principal in the commission of an offense. Cf. id. at 866-67, 395 A.2d at 1236-37 (jury could reasonably have concluded that defendant’s presence facilitated and encouraged principal to commit rape). I would therefore hold that the indictment in this case sufficiently alleged criminal conduct on the part of the defendant.