State v. Noucas, 165 N.H. 146

Defendant Michael Carpenter Noucas was convicted as an accomplice to armed robbery after a jury trial in Superior Court.
June 5, 2010: Noucas, Hart, and Sallies planned to rob David Rivera at Sarah Longval’s Meredith residence; Noucas wore a ski mask and carried a knife.
The group drove to the location; Sallies parked behind the house; Hart and Noucas entered; Sallies remained in the car; Noucas later returned bleeding from injuries.
Hart was found dead with multiple stab wounds; Rivera sustained injuries; a ski mask and a rubber glove linked to Noucas tested positive for his DNA.
Noucas testified that his role was defensive or limited to a conversation with Rivera, arguing defense considerations; the State presented independent evidence of planning and participation.
The court addressed sufficiency of evidence, defense-of-another instructions, hearsay rulings, and a claim of plain error regarding invocation of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Noucas aided and agreed to assist Hart to commit armed robbery.	Evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude innocence; lack of renunciation not established.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction; rational jurors could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Defense of another instruction	Court should not have given defense-of-another instruction; not requested or applicable.	Court erred by not instructing on defense of another since force used could be justified and relates to the offense.	No reversible error; model instructions not required because defendant presented a different factual theory.
Hearsay objection	Rivera’s purported statements about plans were admissible to prove state of mind under Rule 803(3).	Proffered evidence was admissible as a statement of Rivera’s then-existing intent; exclusion harmed defense.	No reversible error; offer of proof was inadequate and exclusion did not prejudice defense.
Plain error re invocation of counsel	No error in admitting testimony about invocation; admissibility within discretion.	Plain error for trial court not to strike or curtail reference to invocation of right to counsel.	No plain error; ruling not clearly erroneous under governing law.

State v. Formella, 158 N.H. 114 (2008) (accomplice liability framework)
State v. Newcomb, 140 N.H. 72 (1995) (definition of direct vs circumstantial evidence)
State v. Langill, 161 N.H. 218 (2010) (sufficiency standard for guilty verdicts)
State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (defense of another as a theory of defense and jury instruction)
State v. Hast, 133 N.H. 747 (1990) (defense-of-another instruction considerations)
State v. Winward, 161 N.H. 533 (2011) (preservation and sufficiency-review principles)
State v. Bruneau, 131 N.H. 104 (1988) (theory of defense vs theory of the case distinction)
State v. Ramos, 149 N.H. 272 (2003) (credibility contest vs legal defense; required framing of defenses)
State v. McMullin, 135 N.H. 675 (1992) (offer of proof requirements in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Saulnier, 132 N.H. 412 (1989) (offer of proof and hearsay exception standards)
State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416 (2007) (plain error standard and need for clarity in law)
State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90 (2010) (plain error considerations for trial court decisions)