People v. Sconce
228 Cal.App.3d 693 (1991)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's withdrawal from a criminal conspiracy is not a defense to the charge of conspiracy if the withdrawal occurs after an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy has been committed. Such withdrawal only insulates the defendant from liability for subsequent acts of the coconspirators.
Facts:
- David Wayne Sconce learned that Cindy Strunk was the beneficiary of a $250,000 life insurance policy on her estranged husband, Elie Estephan.
- After Estephan physically accosted Cindy, Sconce became angry and sought to have Estephan killed.
- Sconce offered his employee, Bob Garcia, $10,000 to $15,000 to murder Estephan, and Garcia agreed to either commit the murder himself or find someone who would.
- Sconce and Garcia met at a restaurant across from Estephan's business, where Sconce used binoculars to identify Estephan for Garcia.
- Sconce provided Garcia with Estephan's home address.
- Garcia, with another employee, John Pollerana, drove to Estephan's home to scout the location.
- Garcia later recruited an ex-convict, Herbert Dutton, who agreed to commit the murder for $5,000, and the two drove to Estephan's house to plan the method, discussing explosives or a shotgun.
- Approximately three weeks after initiating the plan, Sconce contacted Garcia and told him to 'just call it off' and 'forget about it.'
Procedural Posture:
- The People filed an information in the trial court charging David Wayne Sconce with conspiracy to commit murder.
- Following a preliminary hearing, a magistrate held Sconce to answer on the charge.
- Sconce filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the information pursuant to § 995.
- The trial court granted Sconce's motion, finding that he had effectively withdrawn from the conspiracy, and set the information aside.
- The People appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
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 defendant's withdrawal from a criminal conspiracy serve as a defense to the charge of conspiracy if the withdrawal occurs after an overt act has been committed in furtherance of that conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
No. A defendant's withdrawal from a criminal conspiracy is not a defense to the conspiracy charge itself if the withdrawal occurs after an overt act has been committed. The crime of conspiracy is complete upon the agreement and the commission of an overt act. The purpose of requiring an overt act is to provide a 'locus poenitentiae'—a final opportunity for conspirators to abandon their plan before the crime is legally formed. Once an overt act is performed, that opportunity is lost, and the crime of conspiracy is complete. Any subsequent withdrawal by a conspirator does not relate back to erase the completed crime; it merely serves to shield that individual from liability for future criminal acts committed by their former coconspirators.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in California that the crime of conspiracy is complete upon the commission of the first overt act. It clarifies that withdrawal is not a 'get out of jail free' card for the conspiracy itself but rather a limited defense against liability for future substantive crimes. The ruling reinforces the 'group danger' rationale for punishing conspiracy, recognizing that the harm is in the agreement and initial steps, which increase the likelihood of the target crime's success. This case firmly distinguishes California law from the Model Penal Code's 'renunciation' defense, which might allow a complete defense if the conspirator thwarts the plan, a defense unavailable in this jurisdiction.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Sconce (1991)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"