Background
Craig Keville was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree murder and three counts of falsifying physical evidence arising from the shooting deaths of his former partner, Holly Banks, and Keith LaBelle. Earlier that evening, witnesses saw Keville behave aggressively toward Banks and LaBelle at a pub. Later, surveillance footage, cell-site data, and Banks’s password-protected Wi-Fi connection placed Keville’s truck and phone at Banks’s apartment shortly before he messaged his mother, drove south through the Wildcat Mountain area, returned to Gorham, and directed police to Banks’s apartment.
Police found both victims shot with ammunition fired from the same 9mm pistol, but not from Banks’s registered Ruger SR9c. At Keville’s apartment, officers found an unzipped, empty pistol-sized case containing a bill of sale for a Ruger 9E. After Keville was released from custody, officers returned under a second warrant and found the case and the torn-up bill of sale in the trash. A live FC Luger 9mm round and a Ruger manual covering the 9E were found in his storage unit, but no compatible handgun was recovered.
On appeal, Keville argued that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude reasonable innocent explanations. He maintained that he might have left Banks’s apartment without entering, or entered and discovered the victims after someone else shot them. He also disputed that he possessed or disposed of the murder weapon and denied discarding the case and bill of sale to impair the investigation.
The Court’s Holding
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considering the circumstances cumulatively, the court held that Keville’s proposed innocent explanations were not sufficiently reasonable to prevent a rational jury from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His hostility toward Banks and LaBelle, presence at the apartment, empty gun case, apologetic message to his mother, circuitous drive, direction to police, and later disposal of evidence supported findings that he had the means, motive, opportunity, and intent to commit the murders and displayed consciousness of guilt afterward.
The court also held that the evidence permitted the jury to find that Keville possessed a Ruger 9E and disposed of it before arriving at the police station. The court distinguished State v. Harris because police searched Keville’s apartment both before and after his release, foreclosing the innocent explanation that the missing gun remained there after an earlier search.
Finally, the timing and circumstances of Keville’s disposal of the gun case and torn bill of sale supported the sole rational conclusion that he acted to impair their availability or verity in the ongoing homicide investigation. The evidence was therefore sufficient to sustain all three falsifying-physical-evidence convictions.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when, viewed collectively and in the State’s favor, guilt is the only rational conclusion; the State need not exclude every merely possible innocent explanation.
- The combination of location data, surveillance footage, communications, firearm-related evidence, and post-crime conduct supported the two first-degree murder verdicts despite the absence of recovered murder weapons, blood, or gunshot residue.
- Discarding an empty gun case and tearing up its bill of sale after learning that police had searched the home supported findings of purposeful impairment in an ongoing investigation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how New Hampshire courts assess an inferential chain of circumstantial evidence as a whole rather than isolating each fact. A defendant’s alternative hypothesis must be sufficiently reasonable to prevent a rational factfinder from concluding that guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also confirms that a falsifying-physical-evidence conviction may rest on circumstantial proof of possession, disposal, and intent, including the timing of the defendant’s conduct and its relationship to an investigation already underway.