State v. Winward, 161 N.H. 533

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed Thomas Winward’s conviction for attempted burglary. The court held that the indictment charged Winward both as a principal and as an accomplice, that the accomplice-liability instruction adequately addressed active participation and mere presence, and that the challenge to the response to the jury question was unpreserved. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holdings

1. The indictment charged Winward both as a principal and as an accomplice because it alleged that he acted in concert with or was aided by the two other men. The trial court therefore properly instructed the jury that the State did not have to prove that Winward personally removed the window screen, and the instruction did not constructively amend the indictment.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a separate instruction stating that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient, because the instruction given required proof that Winward actively helped, participated, assisted, or attempted to help another commit the attempted burglary.
3. The court declined to address the defendant's challenge to the trial court's refusal to specifically answer the jury question because the issue was not adequately preserved for appellate review.
4. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Winward actively aided the attempted burglary, even without evidence that he personally removed the window screen.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court constructively amended the indictment by instructing the jury that the State could prove attempted burglary through accomplice liability without proving that Winward personally removed the window screen.
2. Whether the trial court was required to instruct the jury expressly that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient for accomplice liability.
3. Whether the defendant preserved his challenge to the trial court's refusal to specifically answer the jury's question.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Winward's conviction as an accomplice to attempted burglary.

Disposition

affirmed