Introduction

In the landmark case of State of New Hampshire v. George W. Kilgus, Jr. (128 N.H. 577, 1986), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire addressed critical issues surrounding attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, and the admissibility of electronically recorded evidence. The defendant, George W. Kilgus, Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder in relation to the death of Paul Labonville. This case not only clarified the legal boundaries of solicitation in criminal attempts but also underscored the nuances of evidence admissibility under state and federal constitutions.

Summary of the Judgment

George W. Kilgus, Jr., engaged in an illicit scheme to have Paul Labonville murdered. Kilgus solicited Raoul Chasse to carry out the murder, providing financial incentives and specific instructions to ensure the body was disposed of outside New Hampshire. Despite Chasse's lack of intent to kill, Kilgus's actions fulfilled the criteria for both attempted murder and criminal conspiracy under New Hampshire statutes (RSA 629:1, RSA 629:2, RSA 629:3, RSA 630:1). The Superior Court upheld Kilgus's conviction, sentencing him to over 27 years in prison. Kilgus appealed the decision, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the legality of the recorded conversations used as evidence. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the convictions, solidifying the legal stance on solicitation as a substantial step toward attempted murder.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents in its decision:

• STATE v. KAPLAN - Affirmed that solicitation resulting in the death of the solicited party constitutes capital murder.
• STATE v. OTTO - Highlighted the split in authority regarding whether solicitation can be considered a substantial step in an attempt.
• STATE v. GERALD DAVIS - Defined a substantial step as an overt act directed toward the commission of a crime.
• HOFFA v. UNITED STATES and UNITED STATES v. WHITE - Addressed the admissibility of recorded evidence and Fourth Amendment protections.
• MASSIAH v. UNITED STATES and MAINE v. MOULTON - Discussed the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and its applicability to multiple charges.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the court's reasoning centered on whether Kilgus's solicitation to murder could be deemed a "substantial step" as required by the attempt statute (RSA 629:1). The court acknowledged a division among jurisdictions on this interpretation but ultimately sided with the view that Kilgus's actions met the threshold for an attempted murder charge. By providing payment and specific instructions, Kilgus moved beyond mere preparation, solidifying his intent and actions towards committing the crime.

Regarding the conspiracy charge, the court emphasized that a tacit understanding between Kilgus and Barbara Labonville, coupled with overt acts such as the solicitation of Chasse and the acquisition of funds, sufficiently evidenced the existence of a conspiracy to commit murder.

On the matter of evidence, the court upheld the admissibility of the recorded conversations between Kilgus and Chasse. Given that Chasse consented to the recording and the conversations were pertinent to the crimes under investigation, the court found no violation of the New Hampshire Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches or seizures, nor of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving criminal attempts and conspiracies:

• Soliication as an Attempt: Establishes that criminal solicitation, when coupled with substantial steps towards the commission of the crime, can satisfy the criteria for an attempted crime.
• Conspiracy Evidence: Reinforces the necessity of demonstrating an agreement and overt acts to substantiate conspiracy charges.
• Electronic Surveillance: Clarifies the conditions under which recorded evidence is admissible, highlighting the importance of consent and statutory authorization.
• Constitutional Protections: Balances the rights of defendants against the state's investigatory powers, setting precedents on the limits of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the context of criminal investigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Step in Attempted Murder

An attempted murder charge requires more than just planning to kill someone. It necessitates a significant action taken towards committing the murder. In this case, giving money and instructions to Chasse went beyond mere discussion, indicating a genuine move to carry out the murder.

Criminal Conspiracy

A conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, along with at least one action taken to further that agreement. Here, Kilgus and Barbara's discussions and preparatory actions fulfilled the requirements for conspiracy.

Admissibility of Recorded Evidence

For evidence obtained through recording to be used in court, it must comply with state laws and constitutional protections. If one party consents to the recording, as Chasse did, the evidence is generally admissible.

Rights Under the Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment ensures that defendants have the right to legal counsel during critical stages of their case. However, this right attaches only when formal charges are filed, not necessarily for uncharged crimes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire's decision in State of New Hampshire v. George W. Kilgus, Jr. serves as a pivotal reference point in criminal law, particularly concerning the boundaries of attempted crimes and conspiracy. By affirming that solicitation accompanied by substantial steps meets the criteria for an attempted murder, the court provides clear guidance for future prosecutions. Additionally, the affirmation of the admissibility of recorded conversations under specific conditions reaffirms the state's authority to utilize electronic surveillance effectively, provided constitutional safeguards are observed. This case underscores the delicate balance between enforcing the law and protecting individual rights, setting a precedent that influences both prosecutorial strategies and defendants' defense mechanisms.