Garcia v. State
394 N.E.2d 106 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's conspiracy statute, a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if the person with whom they conspired only feigned agreement and never intended to commit the crime. The statute adopts a unilateral approach, focusing on the defendant's individual intent and belief that an agreement was made, rather than requiring a bilateral meeting of the minds between two culpable parties.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1977, the defendant contacted Allen Young, stating that her husband was abusive and that she wanted him killed.
- Young suggested she contact the police, but she refused. Young then mentioned a fee of $5,000 in an attempt to discourage her.
- On October 4, 1977, the defendant called Young again, said she had $200, and asked if he had found someone to kill her husband.
- Young, though not explicitly promising to find someone, left the defendant with the impression that he would.
- Following the call, Young contacted the Whiting Police Department and agreed to cooperate with them.
- During subsequent recorded conversations, the defendant reaffirmed her desire to have her husband killed.
- Young arranged a final meeting where he introduced the defendant to a plain-clothed detective posing as a hitman.
- At this meeting, the defendant gave the detective $200, a photograph of her husband, and a schedule of his daily habits, agreeing to pay the balance after the murder was completed.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with conspiracy to commit murder.
- At the conclusion of the evidence at her jury trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed her on five years probation.
- The defendant appealed her conviction to the Indiana Supreme Court, which is the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indiana conspiracy statute permit a conspiracy conviction when the defendant's sole alleged co-conspirator was a police informant who feigned agreement and never intended to carry out the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Prentice, Justice
Yes. A defendant can be convicted of conspiracy under Indiana law even if their only co-conspirator feigned agreement. The court held that the legislature, in enacting Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2, abandoned the traditional bilateral concept of conspiracy, which requires a true meeting of minds between two or more guilty parties, in favor of the Model Penal Code's unilateral approach. This modern approach focuses on the culpability of the individual defendant. The court found compelling evidence of this legislative intent in subsection (c) of the statute, which provides that it is no defense that the co-conspirator 'cannot be prosecuted for any reason.' This 'catch-all' provision demonstrates that the statute targets the defendant's individual intent and firm purpose to commit a crime, making the secret intentions of the other party irrelevant. Therefore, the words 'agrees' and 'agreement' in the statute refer to the defendant's subjective state of mind and understanding, not a legally binding contract between two culpable individuals.
Analysis:
This decision officially adopts the unilateral theory of conspiracy in Indiana, aligning the state with the Model Penal Code and a growing number of jurisdictions. By shifting the focus from the 'agreement' as a shared criminal enterprise to the individual defendant's subjective culpability, the ruling significantly broadens the scope of conspiracy liability. This makes it substantially easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in cases involving undercover police officers or informants, as the government is no longer required to prove that two or more parties genuinely intended to commit the target offense. The case solidifies that the core of the crime is the defendant's own criminal purpose, demonstrated by their belief that they have entered into a criminal pact.
Unlock the full brief for Garcia v. State