State v. Merritt
143 NH 714, 738 A. 2d 343 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be criminally liable as an accomplice, the state must prove the defendant actively participated in or aided the commission of the offense; mere presence at the scene of a crime, without evidence of any act or word of encouragement, is insufficient to satisfy the actus reus element of accomplice liability.
Facts:
- In December 1995, Kevin Merritt lived with his girlfriend, Kelly Higgins, who was in dire financial straits and had no income.
- On December 18, 1995, Frances Driscoll's purse containing her credit cards went missing.
- Shortly thereafter, Higgins, accompanied by Merritt, used Driscoll's Jordan Marsh card to purchase jewelry. The only evidence of Merritt's involvement was a clerk's statement that he was with Higgins.
- Later that day, after Merritt tried on clothes at American Eagle Outfitters, Higgins purchased men's clothing for him using Driscoll's Visa card, with Merritt doing most of the talking during the sale.
- At two different jewelry stores, Merritt actively negotiated prices for men's bracelets, which Higgins then purchased for him using Driscoll's Visa card.
- Around 5:30 p.m. the same day, Marjorie Dannis' purse containing her credit cards was stolen from her car.
- That evening, at J.C. Penney, Higgins purchased a men's diamond ring for Merritt using Dannis' Mastercard. Merritt interacted principally with the sales clerk and provided the false name 'Kevin Johnson' for the diamond certificate.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Merritt was indicted on four counts of acting in concert on the fraudulent use of credit cards.
- A jury trial was held in the New Hampshire Superior Court, which is the trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The jury found Merritt guilty on all four counts.
- Merritt (appellant) appealed his convictions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the state's highest court, arguing that the evidence presented by the State of New Hampshire (appellee) was insufficient to support the verdicts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's mere presence in a store while another person fraudulently uses a credit card, without any evidence of words or actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for accomplice liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Broderick, J.
No. Mere presence at the scene of a crime, without proof of some active participation or encouragement, is insufficient to establish the actus reus required for accomplice liability. For the first count involving the Jordan Marsh purchase, the State presented no evidence that Merritt did anything other than accompany Higgins to the store. This amounts to mere presence and cannot sustain a conviction for being an accomplice. However, for the subsequent three counts, the evidence was sufficient. Merritt actively participated by selecting merchandise, trying on clothes, dominating conversations with sales clerks, and negotiating prices. This conduct constitutes 'aiding' under the accomplice liability statute. Furthermore, a rational jury could find the requisite mens rea (intent) based on the circumstantial evidence, including the couple's relationship, Higgins' financial status, the rapid succession of expensive purchases benefiting Merritt, and Merritt's use of a false name. The defendant's alternative innocent explanations were deemed speculative and unsupported by evidence, failing to create a rational conclusion other than guilt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between 'mere presence' at a crime scene and the 'active participation' required for accomplice liability. It clarifies for prosecutors that to secure a conviction, they must present evidence of a specific act or statement by the defendant that aided or encouraged the principal offender. The case also illustrates the power of cumulative circumstantial evidence to prove mens rea, demonstrating that a pattern of suspicious behavior (like a sudden shopping spree by a person with no income) combined with direct benefits to the defendant and deceptive acts (like using a false name) can be sufficient to negate a defendant's claims of ignorance and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Merritt