general, statements made by coconspirators “shown to have taken place after the conspiracy came to an end ... are not admissible against the other defendants.” Commonwealth v. Shea, 323 Mass. 406, 414 (1948). Commonwealth v. Bongarzone, supra at 340 n.11. However, our cases have recognized that acts of concealment performed in the aftermath of a joint venture may extend the duration of the conspiracy “so that declarations of one coventurer furthering the concealment [can] be put in evidence against another.” Commonwealth v. White, 370 Mass, at 709-710 & n.8. We “regard both the commission of the crime and the attempt to evade arrest for the crime as part of a single, continuous joint venture.” Commonwealth v. Bright, supra at 436. See Commonwealth v. Stuart, 207 Mass. 563, 567 (1911) (<HOLDING>). The defendant correctly points out, however,
recognizing the viability of the coconspirator exception for statements regarding the concealment of evidence or fruits of the crime after the paramount object of the conspiracy has been attained holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that statements by a cooperating coconspirator to known authorities made after the commencement of cooperation are not admissible under rule 801d2e because such statements are not made in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy