New Hampshire v. Merritt, 738 A.2d 343 (N.H. 1999)

Facts: ∆ Merritt and her boyfriend Higgins were in financial trouble. They stole credit cards and went on a multi-store shopping spree. At the first store (Jordan Marsh), ∆ was merely present. At subsequent stores, ∆ distracted clerks and selected merchandise while Higgins paid with the stolen cards.
Issue: Whether ∆'s mere presence at the first store satisfied the actus reus of accomplice liability, and whether her conduct at the other stores did.
Rule: Mere presence is not enough—but a defendant present whose presence is intended to, and does, aid or encourage the principal is liable as an accomplice.
Analysis: At Jordan Marsh, ∆ did nothing beyond standing there—insufficient. At the other stores, ∆'s active distraction and merchandise selection materially aided Higgins's fraudulent purchases—accomplice actus reus satisfied.
Judgment: Jordan Marsh conviction reversed; remaining three convictions affirmed.