## Facts

- A group of students planned to steal mathematics exam questions from a high school.
- Paul Formella and two friends were asked to act as lookouts while another group went to the third floor to take the exam questions.
- Formella and his friends agreed and, while walking to their lockers on the second floor, looked around to ensure no one was present.
- After getting their books, Formella and his friends decided what they were doing was wrong, left the building, and waited outside.
- The other group successfully stole the exam questions, and later the groups met and shared the stolen questions.
- When school officials and police investigated about a week later, Formella admitted his involvement.
- Formella argued he withdrew before the theft was completed and therefore should not be liable as an accomplice.

## Issues

1. Whether Formella proved withdrawal from accomplice liability under RSA 626:8, VI(c), including whether he “wholly deprived” his prior complicity of effectiveness before the offense was committed.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, was sufficient to convict Formella of theft under criminal liability for the conduct of another.
3. Whether the trial court was required to make explicit findings on when the theft was completed and when Formella withdrew.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the conviction.
- The court held Formella did not satisfy RSA 626:8, VI(c) because merely leaving the scene without communicating withdrawal did not wholly deprive his prior assistance of effectiveness.
- The court held the evidence supported accomplice liability because Formella agreed to act as a lookout, performed that role, did not neutralize his prior aid, and later shared in the stolen exam questions.
- The court found no reversible error in the absence of specific timing findings because, on this record, the result would not change.

## Legal Principles

- Under RSA 626:8, VI(c), withdrawal requires: (1) termination of complicity, (2) termination before commission of the offense, and (3) an act that wholly deprives prior complicity of effectiveness.
- “Wholly depriving” prior complicity of effectiveness requires more than stopping participation; it generally requires an affirmative act (such as communicating withdrawal and disapproval) done early enough to allow the principals time to reconsider.
- A withdrawing accomplice need not actually prevent the crime, but must take steps that negate or neutralize the effect of prior encouragement or assistance.
- On sufficiency review, the evidence is assessed in its entirety with reasonable inferences drawn in the State’s favor; the conviction stands if a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Formella’s accomplice-theft conviction because his agreement to serve as a lookout and his actual lookout conduct were not undone by a silent departure; withdrawal under RSA 626:8 requires an affirmative step that communicates withdrawal or otherwise neutralizes prior aid before the offense occurs.


State v. Formella, 158 N.H. 114, 960 A.2d 722 (N.H. 2008)