State v. Tyma
264 Neb. 712, 651 N.W.2d 582, 2002 Neb. LEXIS 210 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Nebraska law, which adopts the unilateral approach to conspiracy, a person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if they agree with another to commit a felony, even if the other person only feigns agreement and has no actual intent to carry out the crime.
Facts:
- Shireen Tyma was estranged from her husband, Tim Tyma.
- In early 1999, Tyma approached Kenneth Moore and asked him to kill her husband, Tim.
- Tyma provided Moore with notes outlining the murder plan, ammunition, and offered to pay him up to $10,000.
- Moore led Tyma to believe he would carry out the murder plot, but he never had any intention of doing so.
- Between September and December 1999, Tyma also approached Leo Purvis, asking him to kill her husband.
- Tyma gave Purvis a .25-caliber pistol, photographs of Tim, and small amounts of money to facilitate the murder.
- Purvis told Tyma that he would kill Tim as she requested, but like Moore, he had no intention of actually doing so and was primarily interested in continuing a sexual relationship with Tyma.
Procedural Posture:
- Shireen Tyma was charged by information with conspiracy to commit first degree murder in the district court for Hall County.
- Tyma filed a motion in the district court to suppress evidence, including a handwriting sample and items seized from her residence and her parents' residence.
- The district court suppressed the handwriting sample and evidence from Tyma's residence but denied suppression of evidence from her parents' home.
- The State filed an interlocutory appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
- A single judge of the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression of evidence from Tyma's home but affirmed the suppression of the handwriting sample, remanding the case to the district court.
- Following remand, the case proceeded to a bench trial in the district court.
- The district court found Tyma guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced her to 8 to 15 years in prison.
- Tyma then perfected a direct appeal from her conviction and sentence, which the Nebraska Supreme Court took up on its own motion.
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 agreement with another person to commit a felony constitute a criminal conspiracy under Nebraska law, even when the other person feigns agreement with no intention of carrying out the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephan, J.
Yes, a defendant's agreement with another person to commit a felony constitutes a criminal conspiracy under Nebraska law even if the other person feigns agreement. The court reasoned that Nebraska's criminal conspiracy statute, § 28-202, adopts the unilateral approach to the element of agreement, as derived from the Model Penal Code. Under this approach, the focus is on the defendant's culpability and subjective intent. The crime is complete when the defendant believes they are entering into a criminal agreement with another and an overt act is committed; it is irrelevant that the other party is merely pretending to agree, as was the case with both Moore and Purvis. The court rejected Tyma's argument that traditional contract law principles requiring a 'meeting of the minds' apply, distinguishing the purpose of criminal law from contract law. The testimony of Moore and Purvis, combined with Tyma's handwritten notes, provided sufficient evidence that Tyma believed she had formed an agreement with them to murder her husband, satisfying the statutory requirement for conspiracy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Nebraska's adherence to the unilateral theory of conspiracy, which significantly broadens the scope of conspiracy liability compared to the traditional bilateral approach. By focusing solely on the defendant's state of mind, the ruling makes it easier to prosecute individuals who plan crimes with government informants or undercover agents who have no genuine criminal intent. The case clarifies that the essence of the crime of conspiracy in Nebraska is the defendant's dangerous willingness to agree to a criminal enterprise, not the formation of a genuine partnership in crime. This precedent strengthens the state's ability to intervene and prosecute criminal plots before they result in harm, particularly in sting operations.
