Kilgore v. State
1983 Ga. LEXIS 754, 291 S.E.2d 82, 251 Ga. 291 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For individuals to be considered co-conspirators in a 'wheel' conspiracy, they must share a community of interest and have knowledge of each other's existence, such that a single agreement can be inferred; separate, independent agreements with a central 'hub' do not suffice. Evidence of a defendant's other independent crimes may be admissible if there is sufficient evidence the defendant committed them and they are logically connected to the charged offense to prove identity, motive, or scheme.
Facts:
- Tom Carden wanted his brother-in-law, Roger Norman, killed.
- On February 6, 1981, Greg Benton and David Oldaker, acting on Carden's instructions, unsuccessfully attempted to kill Norman. Kilgore was not involved in this attempt.
- On June 8, 1981, Kilgore and his cousin, Lee Berry, shot and wounded Norman while he was driving on Interstate 59 (I-59).
- The following day, Kilgore's girlfriend, Constance Chambers, overheard Kilgore telling Carden on the phone, 'apparently we didn’t get him' and 'we’ll take care of it.' Kilgore then collected $900 from near Carden’s trailer.
- After receiving more money from Carden, Kilgore and a new accomplice, Bob Price, made another attempt on Norman's life around July 5, 1981.
- On July 8, 1981, Norman was shot in the head and killed while driving south on I-59.
- Following the murder, Kilgore confessed to Chambers that he and Price had killed a man on I-59 who was driving a new burgundy car.
- On July 16, 1981, Tom Carden died. Kilgore later told Chambers that he and Price had killed Carden with a drug overdose because 'he knew too much.'
Procedural Posture:
- Kilgore was tried for the murder of Roger Norman in the Dade County Superior Court.
- On April 29, 1982, a jury found Kilgore guilty of murder.
- The trial court sentenced Kilgore to life in prison.
- Kilgore (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Georgia (the highest state 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 a single conspiracy exist among separate groups who independently contract with a central figure to commit the same crime, but who have no knowledge of each other and no community of interest, such that the out-of-court statements of a member of one group are admissible against a member of the other group?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Justice.
No. A single conspiracy does not exist among separate groups who independently contract with a central figure to commit the same crime without knowledge of each other or a community of interest. The court analyzed the conspiracy as a 'wheel' conspiracy, with Carden as the central 'hub' and the two assassination teams (Benton/Oldaker and Kilgore/Price) as separate 'spokes.' For the spokes to be co-conspirators, they must have a community of interest or reason to know of each other's existence. Here, the success of Kilgore's efforts was not dependent on the prior failed attempt by Benton and Oldaker, and neither group knew of the other. Therefore, they were not co-conspirators, and the hearsay testimony of Oldaker about statements made by Benton was improperly admitted against Kilgore. However, the court found this to be harmless error because the other evidence of Kilgore's guilt—including his involvement in the second attempt, his multiple admissions to his girlfriend, and his subsequent murder of Carden to conceal the crime—was overwhelming.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear judicial explanation of the 'wheel' versus 'chain' conspiracy distinction under Georgia law. It establishes that separate actors ('spokes') connected only by a common central figure ('hub') do not form a single conspiracy without a shared community of interest or mutual awareness that would allow the inference of a single overarching agreement. The decision limits the application of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, requiring more than just a common objective to connect disparate actors. The finding of harmless error, however, illustrates that even a significant evidentiary error concerning a key legal doctrine may not result in reversal if the remaining evidence of guilt is exceptionally strong.
Unlock the full brief for Kilgore v. State