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

Facts: Papillon, a drug dealer who mistakenly believed M.P. was a confidential informant against him, urged Stillwell, Smith, and Younge to kill M.P. He provided guns and costumes for a Halloween murder. They declined that night, but on November 3 found and shot M.P. Papillon arranged alibis, distributed drugs/money to the conspirators, transported them after the killing, and later told an associate "There's where I killed my f**king rat." From jail he plotted to silence the others. Convicted of conspiracy.
Issue: Whether evidence of a tacit understanding to commit a crime is sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction.
Rule: A tacit understanding to commit a crime is enough. Conspiracy is (1) two or more individuals (2) agreeing, tacitly or otherwise, (3) to commit a crime, with (4) at least one overt act in furtherance.
Analysis: Even though the Halloween proposal was rejected, the prolonged urging, supplying weapons, ongoing communications, post-killing reward, and later admissions allowed the jury to find a tacit conspiracy spanning October–November.
Judgment: Conviction affirmed.

Reading: pp. 329–39. See Actus Reus.