Perry v. State
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20861, 2014 WL 7331180, 155 So. 3d 390 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime, coupled with an intent to commit the crime, which can be established through circumstantial evidence. Mere presence at the scene, knowledge of the crime, or aiding others in the commission of the substantive offense is not sufficient to prove conspiracy.
Facts:
- Christopher S. Perry was convicted on multiple counts related to the sexual abuse of his daughter, E.P., by Robert G. Young.
- Perry was charged with capital sexual battery as a principal (counts 1-5), lewd molestation as a principal (count 6), felony child neglect (count 7), and conspiracy with his wife and mother-in-law to commit capital sexual battery on E.P. (count 8).
- Perry challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions, particularly arguing that the evidence did not establish an agreement necessary for the conspiracy charge.
- Perry and his wife allowed Young, a known sex offender, to sleep in the same bed as their 8-year-old daughter E.P.
- The Perry family was financially dependent on Young, who paid their bills and provided transportation.
- Perry and his wife signed a safety plan agreeing not to leave their children unsupervised with Young, but continued to allow Young to sleep with E.P.
- When confronted by investigators, Perry and his wife repeatedly denied that Young was sleeping with E.P. and claimed he slept on the couch.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge due to insufficient evidence of an agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Nortwick (J.)
Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge because there was no direct proof of an agreement between Perry and his co-defendants for the commission of a sexual battery, and the circumstantial evidence was also insufficient to establish such an agreement or intent to conspire. While the offense of conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the State must prove that there was an intent to conspire, the intention to commit the offense, and the existence of an agreement. In this case, the circumstantial evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish these elements. Therefore, we reverse the conviction and sentence for conspiracy and remand for entry of a judgment of acquittal on that count.
Concurrence in part and dissent in part - Rowe (J.)
I dissent from the majority's conclusion on the conspiracy charge because the State presented sufficient evidence to establish an implied agreement between Perry and his wife, Mary Perry, to commit the offense of capital sexual battery. The evidence showed that Perry and his wife were aware that Young was a convicted sex offender, yet they allowed him to sleep in the same bed as their eight-year-old daughter. They gave identical false statements to investigators, denying that Young was sleeping with E.P. Their agreement to not disclose the actual sleeping arrangements prevented the removal of E.P. from the home, potentially allowing additional abuse. Perry and his wife also willfully disregarded a child safety plan, continuing to allow Young unsupervised contact with E.P. and even locking her in the bedroom with him. These collective actions provide strong evidence of a tacit agreement between Perry and Mary Perry to allow Young unrestricted access to their daughter and to actively conceal Young's abuse of E.P. The lies told to investigators can be considered overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Given these facts, the jury could reasonably infer from the circumstances that Perry and Mary engaged in a conspiracy to commit capital sexual battery of E.P.
Analysis:
This case highlights the complexities of proving conspiracy through circumstantial evidence and sets a precedent on the level of evidence required to establish an agreement in conspiracy charges within the context of criminal law. The majority opinion emphasizes the need for clear evidence of an agreement and intent to conspire, even when dealing with circumstantial evidence. The dissenting opinion, however, argues that the totality of circumstances and actions taken by the defendants could be sufficient for a jury to infer a tacit agreement. This split decision underscores the challenges in prosecuting conspiracy cases and the importance of thorough investigation and presentation of evidence to establish all elements of the crime.
