State v. Sample
573 N.W.2d 187, 1998 Wisc. LEXIS 10, 215 Wis. 2d 487 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wisconsin's conspiracy statute, Wis. Stat. § 939.31, encompasses a unilateral approach, meaning a person can be convicted of conspiracy if they agree with another person to commit a crime, even if that other person is a government agent who only feigns agreement and never intends to commit the crime.
Facts:
- Jerry W. Sample, a correctional officer at the Waukesha County Jail, was approached by an inmate in July 1993 to smuggle a package of 'cigarettes' into the jail for $50.
- Over the next several months, Sample brought similar packages to the inmate on approximately 15 occasions, eventually understanding they contained marijuana or cocaine which the inmate was distributing.
- The Waukesha County Sheriff's Department began an investigation after receiving information that an employee was bringing controlled substances into the jail.
- On December 2, 1993, investigators met with the inmate, who agreed to cooperate with the investigation in exchange for immunity from prosecution and identified Sample as the smuggler.
- As part of a 'reverse sting' operation on December 9, 1993, the cooperating inmate instructed Sample to pick up a package of cocaine from his 'girlfriend.'
- Sample met the 'girlfriend,' who was actually an undercover detective, and received a package of cocaine from her, at which point he was immediately arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jerry W. Sample in the circuit court with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver to an inmate.
- Sample filed a motion to dismiss the information, arguing the conspiracy statute required a bilateral agreement, which the circuit court denied.
- Sample renewed his argument several times, including through a proposed jury instruction on the bilateral theory of conspiracy, which the circuit court rejected.
- A jury convicted Sample of the conspiracy charge.
- Sample appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted certification from the court of appeals to resolve the issue.
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 Wisconsin's conspiracy statute, Wis. Stat. § 939.31, criminalize a 'unilateral' conspiracy, where a person agrees with a government agent or informant who only feigns agreement to commit a crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Geske, J.
Yes. Wisconsin's conspiracy statute, Wis. Stat. § 939.31, criminalizes unilateral conspiracies. The court's reasoning is based on a plain reading of the statutory language. The statute begins with 'whoever,' an indefinite pronoun that can be read as singular, and uses the singular verbs 'agrees' and 'combines.' The phrase 'with intent that a crime be committed' grammatically modifies only 'whoever,' focusing the inquiry on the subjective criminal intent of the individual defendant, not the state of mind of their co-conspirator. Therefore, a defendant can be guilty of conspiracy based on their own intent and agreement, even if the other party is a police agent who is only feigning agreement.
Concurring - Abrahamson, C.J.
Yes, but the majority reaches the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. The majority's reliance on the 'plain meaning' of the statute through grammatical analysis is flawed because words like 'whoever' are inherently ambiguous. Instead of focusing solely on grammar, the court should have considered extrinsic aids such as legislative history and public policy rationales that support both the unilateral and bilateral approaches to conspiracy. A more comprehensive method of statutory interpretation, which considers text, history, purpose, and context, would provide a more robust and sound basis for the court's holding.
Analysis:
This decision officially establishes that Wisconsin follows the modern 'unilateral' theory of conspiracy, aligning the state with the Model Penal Code. By focusing on the individual defendant's subjective intent, the ruling makes it significantly easier for prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges based on sting operations. The case clarifies that the legal fiction of a 'meeting of the minds' between two criminally culpable parties is not required; one person's criminal intent is sufficient for a conspiracy charge, regardless of the status or intent of the other party. This holding strengthens the ability of law enforcement to intervene in and prosecute criminal plots before they are completed, particularly when using informants or undercover officers.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Sample