Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | 35441. |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 488,197 Miss. 96 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
B B. Allen, of Indianola, and A. B. Galloway, of Memphis Tenn., for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of conspiracy, and is a companion case to Ohlman v. State, Miss., 16 So.2d 372. The indictment alleges, with probably unnecessary detail and prolixity, that the appellant, F. A. Ohlman and R. D. Johnson, entered into a conspiracy to obtain property from Mr. and Mrs. Chandler by false pretenses; the scheme agreed on being, in substance, that Martin and Ohlman were to obtain property from the Chandlers in exchange for oil royalty acreage in Holmes County, Mississippi, by falsely representing to them that there was a brisk market for all the oil royalty acreage in the vicinity of that offered the Chandlers, and that none of it in that vicinity had sold for less than $100 an acre; and that Johnson would aid Martin and Ohlman in so doing by falsely promising the Chandlers to purchase oil royalty acreage acquired by them at a price in excess of that which Martin and Ohlman would offer to sell such acreage to the Chandlers. The indictment then, under the caption of "overt acts", alleges that the conspirators made to the Chandlers the fraudulent representations set forth in the body of the indictment, and because thereof the Chandlers accepted oil royalty acreage offered them by Martin and Ohlman in exchange for property owned by them. A demurrer challenged this indictment on several grounds, two of which are (1) that the conspiracy became merged in the commission of the crime contemplated by the agreement, and therefore the parties thereto could not be punished for a conspiracy, but only for the completed crime; and (2) that if mistaken in this, the indictment attempted to charge a misdemeanor, i. e. a conspiracy, and a felony, i. e. obtaining goods by means of false pretenses, in the same count.
A conspiracy to commit a crime is a complete offense, separate and distinct from, and does not become merged in, the commission of the crime contemplated by the conspiracy. Neither at common law nor under section 2056 of 2 Mississippi Code 1942, is an overt act pursuant to a conspiracy necessary for the completion of the crime; the allegation of such an act in this indictment was unnecessary, but its allegation did not convert the indictment into one for the commission of the crime contemplated by the conspiracy, although the overt act charged is the commission of the crime contemplated by it. All of these propositions are covered by King v. State, 123 Miss. 532, 86 So. 339.
The evidence as to the existence of this conspiracy was wholly circumstantial. The appellant offered no evidence, and according to that introduced by the State, Ohlman on more than one occasion obtained property from the Chandlers in exchange for oil royalty acreage in Holmes county by means of false representations that the market for such property was active in the vicinity where the property offered by Ohlman was situated, and that no acreage in that vicinity had sold for less than $100 per acre; and that Johnson promised the Chandlers to purchase oil royalty acreage from them, as alleged in the indictment. Martin also obtained property from the Chandlers in exchange for oil royalty acreage; but he is not shown to have made any representations to them, such as the alleged conspiracy contemplated. He had an interest in the oil royalty acreage exchanged by Ohlman with the Chandlers, and knew that Ohlman was making these exchanges, but there was no direct evidence that he knew that Ohlman had, or was to make these representations.
The court below refused a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. State
...(Miss.1969); Brown v. State, 219 Miss. 748, 70 So.2d 23 (1954); Williams v. State, 220 Miss. 800, 72 So.2d 147 (1954); Martin v. State, 197 Miss. 96, 19 So.2d 488 (1944); Holifield v. State, 132 Miss. 446, 96 So. 306 (1923); Bolden v. State, 98 Miss. 723, 54 So. 241 (1910). A greater quantu......
-
Dilworth v. State
...(Miss.1969); Brown v. State, 219 Miss. 748, 70 So.2d 23 (1954); Williams v. State, 220 Miss. 800, 72 So.2d 147 (1954); Martin v. State, 197 Miss. 96, 19 So.2d 488 (1944); Jolly v. State, 174 So. 244 (Miss. 1937); Holifield v. State, 132 Miss. 446, 96 So. 306 (1923); Bolden v. State, 98 Miss......
-
Magee v. State
...Thomas , 645 So. 2d 931, 933 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Norman v. State , 381 So. 2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1980) ); see also Martin v. State , 197 Miss. 96, 19 So. 2d 488, 489 (1944). Rather, "[a] conspiracy is a separate, complete offense and the crime is completed once the agreement is formed; no ......
-
Davis v. State
...by the conspiracy and does not become merged with that crime. Harrigill v. State, 381 So.2d 619, 621 (Miss.1980), Martin v. State, 197 Miss. 96, 19 So.2d 488 (1944), Moore v. State, 290 So.2d 603 (Miss.1974), U.S. v. York, 578 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 1005, 99 S.Ct. 619......