State v. Gilbert
| Citation | 115 N.H. 665,348 A.2d 713 |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7175,7175 |
| Parties | STATE of New Hampshire v. George B. GILBERT. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and James L. Kruse, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Kfoury & Williams, Manchester (Joseph E. Williams, Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The defendant was convicted by jury of conspiring in December 1972 to transport into the State a controlled drug with intent to sell the same in violation of Laws 1969, ch. 421:1 (now RSA 318-B:26 III (Supp.1973); cf. RSA 625:4I(c); RSA 629:3 effective Nov. 1, 1973. At the close of the state's evidence the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case. Subsequently, he moved to set aside the verdict on the same ground. The motions were denied subject to exception and the questions of law presented by defendant's exceptions were reserved and transferred by Keller, C.J.
It is the defendant's contention that the evidence will not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On review, the evidence must be considered 'in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.' State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972).
The state's evidence concerning the transaction in question came primarily from the witness Rousseau. In November 1972, the defendant and the witness Rousseau, at the defendant's suggestion, planned a trip to California in the following month. The defendant had been there twice within a period of a month or two. According to Rousseau the trip was to be a vacation, and he (Rousseau) took $1700 in savings with him, and three suitcases, only one of which contained clothing. The two travelled together by plane from Boston to San Diego and shared various expenses, including the cost of a hotel room for the period of their stay of some seven days. About five days after their arrival Rousseau purchased a quantity of marijuana: four 'bricks' costing $90 and estimated to bring $300 apiece 'on the street' in Manchester, New Hampshire. The defendant was present when Rousseau purchased the marijuana although Rousseau testified that the defendant did not supply any of the money used in the purchase. Together the defendant and Rousseau returned to New Hampshire with the marijuana in one of the suitcases belonging to Rousseau. En route to New Hampshire they discussed the saleability of the marijuana and, as Rousseau put it, 'how much we paid for it, and that'. Rousseau further testified that he told the defendant that he had spent a lot of money and had to make the money he had 'lost', and that the defendant told him he would 'make it, easy'. He also testified that the defendant offered to purchase an unspecified amount of marijuana, but that he told the defendant, 'I don't know, right away'. When they returned to Manchester the drugs were seized by the police before they were removed from the suitcase.
It must be borne in mind that the defendant was not charged with the substantive crime of transportation with intent to sell, but rather with the crime of conspiracy to do so. Nor was he charged with aiding or abetting the substantive crime. See RSA 626:8 then RSA 590-A:2-7; State v. Morin, 111 N.H. 113, 115, 276 A.2d 476, 477 (1971).
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy, largely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which is not uncommon where this offense is charged. Its very essence is 'secrecy and concealment' (Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947)), and the State was entitled to 'rely on inferences drawn from the course of conduct of the alleged conspirators'. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 221, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 L.Ed. 610 (1939). See United States v. Cole, 365 F.2d 57 (7th Cir. 1966); People v. Moran, 166 Cal.App.2d 410, 333 P.2d 243 (1958). Since direct evidence of a conspiracy is often difficult to obtain, the existence of a conspiracy frequently must be proved, if at all, by attendant circumstances. United States v. Garelle, 438 F.2d 366 (2d Cir. 1970).
It is well settled in this State that a criminal conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence (State v. Amero, 106 N.H. 134, 207 A.2d 440 (1965); State v. Davis, 108 N.H. 45, 226 A.2d 873 (1967)), where 'all of the factors and circumstances' in evidence are sufficient for a reasonable juror, properly instructed, to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Breest
...doubt of the crime with which he was charged. State v. Reed, 114 N.H. 377, 379-80, 321 A.2d 581, 583 (1974); State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 668, 348 A.2d 713, 717 (1975). II. DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO CAPTAIN Prior to the trial, defendant moved to suppress......
-
State v. Linsky
...evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom." State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975); In re Joyce, 506 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. The defendants contend that even though they entered the premises, the terms of ......
-
State v. Kilgus
...between the parties to cooperate in an illegal course of conduct will warrant a conviction for conspiracy." State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975). The State must also show that one of the conspirators has performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. RSA 6......
-
State v. Burd
...parties to cooperate in an illegal course of conduct will warrant a conviction for conspiracy.' " Id. (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975)). The evidence presented in the instant case reveals that the appellant contacted Miller about committing the murders.......