## Facts

- Paulson Papillon and three associates operated a drug-dealing business in Manchester, New Hampshire.
- After Papillon’s arrest following drug sales, he mistakenly believed customer M.P. was a confidential informant.
- After release on bail, Papillon repeatedly encouraged his associates to kill M.P., supplied a gun and Halloween disguises, and planned to be out of state to create an alibi; the planned Halloween killing did not occur.
- On November 3, 2015, the associates encountered M.P. outside his apartment; one associate shot and killed M.P.
- Minutes after the shooting, the shooter contacted Papillon, who had positioned himself out of state; Papillon instructed another associate to call M.P. to confirm whether he was dead.
- After the killing, Papillon met with the participants, heard details, and distributed drugs and money; he later transported two of them to Connecticut.
- Papillon made inculpatory statements linking himself to the killing and took steps to keep participants quiet, including arranging delivery of drugs and money while incarcerated.
- Papillon discussed plans to kill coconspirators if they cooperated and told another inmate that he “had to have M.P. killed.”

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly allowed Papillon to waive counsel and represent himself when the waiver was allegedly not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
2. Whether admitting testimony that Papillon offered to kill another informant violated Rule 404(b) and, if so, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit murder, including an agreement and intent to promote or facilitate the murder.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Papillon as an accomplice to reckless second-degree murder, and whether accomplice liability can attach to a reckless homicide when the defendant acted purposefully.
5. Whether convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and accomplice to reckless second-degree murder are legally or logically inconsistent.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and accomplice to reckless second-degree murder.
- The court held Papillon validly waived counsel after a thorough colloquy and knowingly chose self-representation with standby counsel.
- The court concluded admission of certain other-bad-acts evidence was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the remaining evidence.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence supported a finding of a tacit agreement to kill M.P. and Papillon’s intent to promote or facilitate the murder.
- The court held accomplice liability required intent to promote the conduct constituting the offense, not identity between the accomplice’s and principal’s mental state as to the result; the verdicts were not inconsistent.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, typically established through an on-the-record colloquy.
- Improper admission of other-bad-acts evidence may be affirmed if the State proves the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the remaining evidence.
- Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence of a tacit agreement and the defendant’s intent to promote or facilitate commission of the target offense.
- Under New Hampshire accomplice law, liability turns on intent to promote or facilitate the conduct constituting the crime; conviction for a reckless-result offense does not require the accomplice to share the principal’s reckless mental state as to the result.
- Conspiracy and the substantive offense are distinct; differing mens rea elements between conspiracy to kill and reckless homicide do not, by themselves, render verdicts inconsistent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Papillon’s convictions, finding a valid waiver of counsel, harmlessness of a Rule 404(b) evidentiary error, sufficient evidence of a tacit murder conspiracy and accomplice participation, and no legal inconsistency in pairing conspiracy to commit murder with accomplice liability for reckless second-degree murder.


State v. Papillon, 173 N.H. 13, 236 A.3d 839 (N.H. 2020)