## Facts

- A neighbor observed two men at a residence while one attempted to pry open a basement window.
- The other man allegedly stood nearby, watched, and intermittently spoke with the principal during the attempted entry.
- Police were notified and apprehended both men as they fled.
- The defendant was indicted as an accomplice to attempted burglary under RSA 626:8, III.
- The indictment alleged that, with the purpose of promoting and facilitating the attempted burglary, the defendant “purposely aid[ed]” the principal “by accompanying him to the location of said crime and watching” as the attempt occurred.
- The defendant moved pretrial to dismiss the indictment as facially insufficient; the trial court denied the motion, and a jury convicted him.
- On appeal, the defendant challenged only the sufficiency of the indictment.

## Issues

1. Whether an accomplice-liability indictment sufficiently charges an offense under RSA 626:8, III when the only specific acts alleged are accompanying the principal to the scene and watching the attempted burglary, even though the indictment asserts a purpose to promote or facilitate the crime.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the conviction.
- The court held the indictment was insufficient on its face because the alleged conduct—accompaniment and observation—did not constitute the affirmative “aid” required by RSA 626:8, III.
- The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment must allege facts that, if true, constitute criminal activity; conclusory statutory phrasing does not cure missing factual elements.
- Accomplice liability under RSA 626:8, III requires a culpable purpose plus an affirmative act: soliciting, aiding, agreeing to aid, or attempting to aid the principal in planning or committing the offense.
- Mere presence, knowledge, accompaniment, or observation at the scene—without additional affirmative assistance—does not satisfy the act requirement for accomplice liability.
- Courts assess indictment sufficiency based on the specific conduct alleged in the charging instrument, not on uncharged background facts.

## Conclusion

Because the indictment alleged only that the defendant accompanied the principal to the scene and watched the attempted burglary, it failed to allege the affirmative assistance required for accomplice liability under RSA 626:8, III, so the conviction was set aside.


State v. Vaillancourt, 122 N.H. 1153 (1982)