State v. Mendoza
889 A.2d 153 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wharton's Rule, which bars a conspiracy conviction for a crime that requires two participants, does not apply when the number of conspirators exceeds the minimum number of participants required for the substantive offense.
Facts:
- Undercover Detective Angelo A’Vant and his partner were approached by Robert Clement, who offered to facilitate a purchase of crack cocaine.
- Detective A'Vant followed Clement to a garage and gave him a marked $20 bill as prepayment for the drugs.
- Clement summoned Antonio Mendoza, who emerged from a nearby dwelling, appeared angry about a stranger's presence, but accepted the $20 bill from Clement.
- Mendoza and Clement briefly entered the dwelling together.
- Upon reemerging, Detective A’Vant observed Mendoza hand a clear bag, which was later confirmed to contain crack cocaine, to Clement.
- Clement then walked back to the detective's vehicle and handed the bag of cocaine to Detective A'Vant.
- When police later returned to arrest Mendoza, they identified themselves as police officers upon entering the property and the dwelling's rear entrance.
- After seeing the officers in the kitchen, Mendoza turned and fled toward the front of the house before being tackled and arrested after a brief struggle.
Procedural Posture:
- The state charged Antonio Mendoza by criminal information in Superior Court with delivery of a controlled substance, conspiracy, possession of marijuana, and resisting arrest.
- After a jury trial, Mendoza was found guilty on all four counts.
- Mendoza's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial justice.
- Mendoza filed a timely notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 Wharton's Rule preclude a conspiracy conviction for the delivery of a controlled substance when the criminal agreement involves three participants: a seller, a middleman, and a buyer?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Williams
No. Wharton's Rule does not preclude the conspiracy conviction because the presence of a third party to a crime requiring only two participants transforms the agreement into a distinct offense. Wharton's Rule is a judicial presumption that an agreement between two persons to commit an offense does not constitute conspiracy when the target offense, by definition, requires the participation of two persons. However, the rule is rendered inapplicable by the 'third-party exception.' This exception applies when the number of conspirators exceeds the essential participants in the contemplated crime. In this case, the conspiracy was not a simple two-party sale between Mendoza and a buyer; it was an agreement between Mendoza (seller) and Clement (middleman) to deliver cocaine to a third party, Detective A'Vant. Because this scheme involved three individuals, which is more than the two minimally necessary to effect the delivery, the third-party exception applies and the conspiracy is a separate, chargeable offense.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'third-party exception' to Wharton's Rule within Rhode Island jurisprudence, specifically in the context of drug conspiracies. It establishes that a conspiracy charge can be brought in addition to a substantive drug delivery charge whenever the criminal scheme involves more participants than the bare minimum required for the delivery itself. This precedent strengthens the state's ability to prosecute multi-party drug transactions, such as those involving middlemen or facilitators, preventing defendants from using the rule as a shield when the criminal enterprise is larger than a simple two-person exchange.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Mendoza