Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

§ 483. The conspiracy or agreement-Necessity for agreement.

§ 484. Necessity for two conspirators.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

§ 490. Conspiracy to do what it would be lawful for individual to do.

§ 491. Distinction between conspiracy and object.

§ 492. Failure to accomplish object, impossible object.

§ 493. Pecuniary benefit.

§ 494. Conspiracy to do acts prejudicial to the public.

§ 495. Conspiracy to do acts prejudicial to individuals.

§ 496. Conspiracy to commit crime-In general.

§ 497.

Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States.

§ 498.

Where contemplated object necessarily involves concert of action.

§ 500.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States.

§ 499. Conspiracy to defraud-In general.

§ 501. Conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice.

§ 502. Conspiracy to do immoral acts.

§ 503. Conspiracy to injure another in his trade or calling.

§ 504. Combinations among workmen.

§ 505. Conspiracies to injure trade or commerce, or in restraint of trade.

§ 506. Conspiracy to prevent free exercise of rights secured by Federal Constitu

tion or laws.

§ 507. Seditious conspiracies.

§ 508. Acts for which conspirators are liable.

§ 509. Effect of withdrawal.

§ 510. Liability of persons who could not be guilty of contemplated crime.

§ 482. Definition and nature. A criminal conspiracy is generally defined to be a combination or agreement between two or more persons to do a criminal or unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means.1

1 United States. Hedderly v. United States, 193 Fed. 561; United States v. Kissel, 173 Fed. 823; United States

v. Moore, 173 Fed. 122; United States
v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698.
Alabama. Smith v. State, 8 Ala.

It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.2

Conspiracy as above defined was a misdemeanor at common law.3 And it is specifically made a crime by statute in many states.*

§ 483. The conspiracy or agreement-Necessity for agreement. The term "conspiracy" imports an agreement, and unless an agreeApp. 187, 62 So. 575.

California. People v. Daniels, 105 Cal. 262, 38 Pac. 720; People v. Richards, 67 Cal. 415, 7 Pac. 828, 56 Am. Rep. 716.

Connecticut. Fimara v. Garner, 86 Conn. 434, 85 Atl. 670.

Delaware. State v. Effler, 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 92, 78 Atl. 411; State v. Clark, 9 Houst. 536, 33 Atl. 310.

Georgia. Bolton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 184, 94 S. E. 95; Stevens v. State, 8 Ga. App. 217, 68 S. E. 874.

Illinois. Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N. E. 176, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. 248; People v. Curran, 207 Ill. App. 264, aff'd 286 Ill. 302, 121 N. E. 637; Orr v. People, 63 Ill. App. 305.

Indiana. Brewster v. State, 186 Ind. 369, 115 N. E. 54.

Iowa. State v. Browning, 153 Iowa 37, 133 N. W. 330.

Maryland. Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75 Atl. 631, 21 Ann. Cas. 28; Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 71 Atl. 1058.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346.

Missouri. State v. Porter, (Mo.), 199 S. W. 158; State v. Dalton & Fay, 134 Mo. App. 517, 114 S. W. 1132.

North Carolina. State v. Dalton, 168 N. C. 204, 83 S. E. 693.

Oklahoma. Conley V. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 531, 179 Pac. 480; Washmood v. United States, 10 Okla. Cr. 254, 136 Pac. 184; Wilson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 649, 115 Pac. 819; Wishard v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 610, 115 Pac. 796.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Richardson, 229 Pa. 609, 79 Atl. 222, aff'g 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 337; Com. v. Brown, 58 Pa. Super. Ct. 300; Com. v. Stovas, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 43.

South Carolina. State v. Ameker, 73 S. C. 330, 53 S. E. 484. Virginia. Harris v. Com., 113 Va. 746, 73 S. E. 561, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458, Ann. Cas. 1913 E. 597.

It is a confederation to do something unlawful either as a means or an end. Com. v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43; Com. v. Stovas, 45 Pa. Super Ct. 43; State v. Eastern Coal Co., 29 R. I. 254, 70 Atl. 1, 132 Am. St. Rep. 817, 17 Ann. Cas. 96; State v. Bacon, 27 R. I. 252, 61 Atl. 653; State v. Davis, 88 S. C. 229, 70 S. E. 811, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 295; State v. Ameker, 73 S. C. 330, 53 S. E. 484.

2 United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601, 54 L. Ed. 1168, 31 Sup. Ct. 124, rev'g 173 Fed. 823; Wilson v. United States, 190 Fed. 427.

31 Hawkins P. C. 466.

See also the following decisions: Arkansas. Powell v. State, 133 Ark. 477, 203 S. W. 25.

Connecticut. Fimara V. Garner, 86 Conn. 434, 85 Atl. 670.

Maryland. State v. Buchanan, 5. Har. & J. 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534. Rhode Island. State v. Bacon, 27 R. I. 252, 61 Atl. 653.

England. O'Connell Clark & F. 155, 233.

v. Reg., 11

4 See the statutes of the various states.

As to whether the common law as to conspiracies is impliedly repealed

ment is shown, the crime is not made out.5 But the agreement need not be a formal one. It need not be manifested by any formal words, written or spoken. It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understandingly, so as to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the acts contemplated. And such an agreement

by statutes on the same subject, see § 79, supra.

5 United States. Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347, 56 L. Ed. 1114, 32 Sup. Ct. 793, aff'g 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 451; United States v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33, 25 L. Ed. 539; McGinniss v. United States, 256 Fed. 621.

Alabama. Thompson v. State, 106 Ala. 67, 17 So. 512.

Arizona. Territory v. Turner, 4 Ariz. 290, 37 Pac. 368.

Arkansas. Bundy v. State, 95 Ark. 460, 130 S. W. 522.

Missouri. State v. Porter (Mo.), 199 S. W. 158.

New York. People v. Suffolk Contracting Co., 171 App. Div. 645, 157 N. Y. Supp. 523.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Stovas, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 43; Com. v. Tilly, 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 35.

South Carolina. State v. Ameker, 73 S. C. 330, 53 S. E. 484.

Texas. King v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 407, 216 S. W. 1091.

England. Mulchy v. Reg., L. R. 3 H. L. 306.

"Of course, a mere discussion between parties about entering into a conspiracy, or as to the means to be adopted for the performance of an unlawful act, does not constitute a conspiracy, unless the scheme, or some proposed scheme, is in fact assented to, concurred in by the parties in some manner, so that their minds meet for the accomplishment of the proposed unlawful act." United States v. Goldberg, 7 Biss. 175, 180, Fed. Cas. No. 15,223.

The mere fact that two or more

persons together commit a crime does not in itself necessarily show a conspiracy. Territory v. Turner, 4 Ariz. 290, 37 Pac. 368; Loggins v. State, 8 Tex. App. 434.

In Texas the statute provides that a threat made by two or more persons acting in concert will not be sufficient to constitute conspiracy. King v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 407, 216 S. W. 1091.

Even where the statute requires an overt act, a party who did not join in the previous agreement cannot be convicted of conspiracy on the overt act. United States v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33, 25 L. Ed. 539.

If the proof fails to establish the conspiracy, the defendant cannot be convicted under a conspiracy count although it also shows the commission of an overt act which is alleged to be a criminal offense. United States v. Rogers, 226 Fed. 512.

Where one of two conspirators does not intend to commit the offense, but gives a feigned consent solely for the purpose of preventing its commission, the other cannot be convicted. Woodworth v. State, 20 Tex. App. 375.

A person cannot be convicted of conspiring with another person, where the latter is acting as a detective, and merely pretends to agree with him to do the contemplated act, and never intends to do it. Com. v. Stovas, 45 Pa. Super. Ct. 43. 6 United States. Holmes v. United States, 267 Fed. 529, certiorari denied 254 U. S. 640, 65 L. Ed. 452, 41 Sup. Ct. 13; Fraina v. United States, 255 Fed. 28; United States v. Breese, 173 Fed. 402, aff'd 203 Fed. 824; United

may be, and generally must be, shown by circumstantial evidence."

States v. Richards, 149 Fed. 443; Chadwick v. United States, 141 Fed. 225; Reilley v. United States, 106 Fed. 896.

Alabama. Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 121, 8 So. 98, 18 Am. St. Rep. 96.

California. People v. Kizer, 22 Cal. App. 10, 133 Pac. 516, 521, 134 Pac. 346.

Illinois. Ochs v. People, 124 Ill. 399, 16 N. E. 662; Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 170, 12 N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898, 3 Am. St. Rep. 320.

Indiana. Brewster v. State, 186 Ind. 369, 115 N. E. 54; Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 N. E. 1039; Musser v. State, 157 Ind. 423, 61 N. E. 1; McKee v. State, 111 Ind. 378, 12 N. E. 510.

Maryland. Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75 Atl. 631, 21 Ann. Cas. 28. Missouri. State v. Porter (Mo.), 199 S. W. 158.

New York. People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 21 Am. Dec. 122.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Tilly, 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 35.

Texas. Burow v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 133, 210 S. W. 805; Smith v. State, 21 Tex. App. 107, 17 S. W. 552.

West Virginia. State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132, 43 S. E. 230.

"It is not necessary, to constitute a conspiracy, that two or more persons should meet together, and enter into an explicit or formal agreement for an unlawful scheme, or that they should directly, by words or in writing, state what the unlawful scheme is to be, and the details of the plan, or means by which the unlawful combination is to be made effective. It is sufficient if two or more persons, in any manner or through any contrivance, positively or tacitly come to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful design.''

United States v. Goldberg, 7 Biss. 175, 180, Fed. Cas. No. 15,223; United States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; United States v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 581, Fed. Cas. No. 14,487; Thomas v. United States, 156 Fed. 897.

"As soon as the union of wills for the unlawful purpose is perfected, the offense of conspiracy is complete. No proof of an agreement to concur in the conspiracy is necessary." People v. Pouchot, 174 Ill. App. 1.

One who participates in a corrupt agreement with knowledge that it is corrupt, and that what he is doing is in furtherance of it, is as guilty as if he had originally conspired. One who enters into an agreement to divide the proceeds of a conspiracy becomes a party to it. State v. Gregory, 93 N. J. L. 205, 107 Atl. 459.

Intentional participation in the transaction, with a view to the accomplishment of the common design, is essential to make one a conspirator. Mere knowledge or acquiescence without such participation is not enough. Holmes v. United States, 267 Fed. 529, certiorari denied 254 U. S. 640, 65 L. Ed. 452, 41 Sup. Ct. 13; United States v. Stilson, 254 Fed. 120, aff'd 250 U. S. 583, 63 L. Ed. 1154, 40 Sup. Ct. 28.

7 United States. Holmes v. United States, 267 Fed. 529, certiorari denied 254 U. S. 640, 65 L. Ed. 452, 41 Sup. Ct. 13; Nee v. United States, 267 Fed. 84; Jelke v. United States, 255 Fed. 264; Steigman v. United States, 220 Fed. 63; United States v. Breese, 173 Fed. 402, aff'd 203 Fed. 824; Smith v. United States, 157 Fed. 721, certiorari denied 208 U. S. 618, 52 L. Ed. 647, 28 Sup. Ct. 569; Thomas V. United States, 156 Fed. 897; Chadwick v. United States, 141 Fed. 225; Reilley v. United States, 106 Fed. 896. And

Nor is it essential that the conspirators shall have agreed as to all the details of the act which is the object of the conspiracy, or as to the

see Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S. 239, 64 L. Ed. 542, 40 Sup. Ct. 205, aff'g 245 Fed. 878.

Alabama. Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53, 57 So. 31; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Martin v. State, 136 Ala. 32, 34 So. 205; Smith v. State, 8 Ala. App. 187, 62 So. 575; Eaton v. State, 8 Ala. App. 136, 63 So. 41.

Arkansas. Powell v. State, 133 Ark. 477, 203 S. W. 25; Bundy v. State, 95 Ark. 460, 130 S. W. 522.

California. People V. Lawrence, 143 Cal. 148, 76 Pac. 893, 68 L. R. A. 193; People v. Kizer, 22 Cal. App. 10, 133 Pac. 516, 521; 134 Pac. 346. Georgia. Carter v. State, 141 Ga. 308, 80 S. E. 995; Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 317, 69 S. E. 488; Bolton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 184, 94 S. E. 95; Stevens v. State, 8 Ga. App. 217, 68 S. E. 874.

Illinois. Tedford v. People, 219 Ill. 23, 76 N. E. 60; Ochs v. People, 124 Ill. 399, 16 N. E. 662; People v. Pouchot, 174 Ill. App. 1.

Indiana. Roberts v. State, 188 Ind. 713, 124 N. E. 750; Brewster v. State, 186 Ind. 369, 115 N. E. 54; Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 N. E. 1039. Kentucky. Gibson v. Com., 189 Ky. 89, 224 S. W. 657; Morgan v. Com., 188 Ky. 458, 222 S. W. 940; Jenkins v. Com., 167 Ky. 544, 180 S. W. 961, 3 A. L. R. 1522; Gambrell v. Com., 130 Ky. 513, 113 S. W. 476.

Maryland. Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75 Atl. 631, 21 Ann. Cas. 28. Missouri. State v. Porter (Mo.), 199 S. W. 158; State v. Harrison, 263 Mo. 642, 174 S. W. 57; State v. Shout, 263 Mo. 360, 172 S. W. 607.

New Mexico. Territory v. Leslie, 15 N. M. 240, 106 Pac. 378.

New York. Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342; People

v. Suffolk Contracting Co., 171 App. Div. 645, 157 N. Y. Supp. 523; People v. Miles, 123 App. Div. 862, 108 N. Y. Supp. 510, aff'd 192 N. Y. 541, 84 N. E. 1117.

Oklahoma. Washmood V. United States, 10 Okla. Cr. 254, 136 Pac. 184; Ex parte Hayes, 6 Okla. Cr. 321, 118 Pac. 609; Wilson v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 649, 115 Pac. 819.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Tilly, 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 35.

Texas. Burow v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. 133, 210 S. W. 805; Smith v. State, 21 Tex. App. 107, 17 S. W. 552.

West Virginia. State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132, 43 S. E. 230.

It may be inferred where the parties are apparently pursuing the same object, whether acting separately or together, by common or different means, all leading to the same unlawful result. Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 N. E. 1039.

That a person, on becoming aware of the unlawful character of the business in which his associates are engaged, fails to withdraw from that business or to repudiate their acts, is alone sufficient to justify a finding that he was a member of the conspiracy between them. Hedderly v. United States, 193 Fed. 561.

Where the offense committed is of such a character that it is necessarily the result of concert of action, all who participate in the things done which result in the offense may, if the inference fairly arises out of everything which has been done, be found guilty of a conspiracy to do what has been done. United States v. Stilson, 254 Fed. 120, aff'd 250 U. S. 583, 63 L. Ed. 1154, 40 Sup. Ct. 28.

Proof of knowledge that the offenses are being committed or of an

« AnteriorContinuar »