State v. Noucas

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Michael Carpenter Noucas’s conviction for being an accomplice to armed robbery. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the failure to instruct on defense of another, the exclusion of a hearsay statement, and the admission of testimony concerning Noucas’s invocation of his right to counsel. The opinion addresses accomplice liability, justification defenses, offers of proof, hearsay, and plain-error review.

Holdings

1. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that an armed robbery occurred and that Noucas, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating it, aided or agreed to aid Hart in committing it.
2. The court declined to reach Noucas's argument that lack of renunciation under RSA 626:8, VI(c) was an element the State had to prove because the argument was not preserved in the trial court.
3. The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of another because Noucas denied the charged conduct and presented a conflicting factual account rather than admitting the conduct and asserting a legally recognized justification.
4. The trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in sustaining the State's hearsay objection because Noucas failed to make a sufficiently specific offer of proof establishing that the proposed testimony was admissible and, in any event, failed to show prejudice.
5. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing sua sponte to strike testimony that Noucas invoked his right to counsel or to give a curative instruction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Noucas's conviction for being an accomplice to armed robbery.
2. Whether the trial court was required to instruct the jury on defense of another under RSA 627:4.
3. Whether the trial court improperly excluded proposed testimony concerning Rivera's alleged statement that he planned to rob Noucas.
4. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to strike or give a curative instruction concerning testimony that Noucas invoked his right to counsel.

Disposition

affirmed