Cited by

“To establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, the State is not required to demonstrate an explicit agreement among the conspirators.” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667 (1975).

To find a defendant guilty of criminal conspiracy, the jury must find that he agreed — even tacitly, State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667 (1975) — to bring about each element of the underlying offense.

*577 We have previously held that “[t]o establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, the State is not required to demonstrate an explicit agreement among the conspirators.” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667 (1975).

Although it is well settled in this State that a criminal conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d *343 713, 715 (1975), “we cannot say that the jury may not have drawn entirely different inferences from all the evidence than they would have drawn if the hearsay evidence had not been admitted.” State v. Ruelke supra.

Looking at the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom,” State v. Linsky, 117 N.H. 866, 872-73, 379 A.2d 813, 818 (1977) (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975), itself quoting State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972)), we conclude that the record reveals sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction.

RSA 629:3, I. We have held in the past that “[a] tacit understanding between the parties to cooperate in an illegal course of conduct wjll warrant a conviction for conspiracy.” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975).

We have often stated that in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence which led to a conviction the evidence must be considered ‘“in the light most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences therefrom.’” State v. Holt, 124 N.H. 645, 647, 474 A.2d 1031, 1033 (1984) (quoting State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975)).

“[o]n review, the 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) (quoting State v. Canney, 112 N.H. 301, 303, 294 A.2d 382, 383 (1972)).

State v. Noel, 119 N.H. 522, 404 A.2d 290 (1979); State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975), and the motion was therefore properly denied.

“It is well settled in this State that a criminal conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence where ‘all of the factors and circumstances’ in evidence are sufficient for a reasonable juror, properly instructed, to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975) (citations omitted), quoting State v. Greely, 115 N.H. 461, 468, 344 A.2d 12, 17 (1975).

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.” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 667, 348 A.2d 713, 715 (1975).

“On review, the 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, *873 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975); In re Joyce, 506 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1975).

It is well settled in this state that when reviewing evidence for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the evidence must be taken “ ‘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).” State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 666, 348 A.2d 713, 714 (1975).

In passing on this question the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the state, which is entitled to all reasonable inferences from it.

ned and warned by Colby and Martineau against complaining to the authorities, and the membership of both defendants and the principals in the murder in the Die Hards, a motorcycle club with a philosophy and modus operandi intended to emulate the more notorious “Hell’s Angels.” The record thus indicates sufficient independent evidence of the conspiracy to render the contested statements admissible.

State v. Reed, 114 N.H. 377, 379-80, 321 A.2d 581, 583 (1974); State v. Gilbert, 115 N.FI.

Although we hold that the other evidence which is circumstantial, as evidence in conspiracy cases often must be, State v. Gilbert, 115 N.H. 665, 348 A.2d 713 (1975), would support a guilty verdict, it barely meets the minimum standard.