Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47740,47740 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 603 |
| Parties | Sandra MOORE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jimmy D. Shelton, Tupelo, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by T. E. Childs, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
The defendant was jointly indicted with Spencer Harlow under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-1-11 (1972) for conspiring to take into her possession a quantity of amphetamine, a schedule III drug, under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. She was tried separately in the Circuit Court of Lee County, convicted and sentenced to serve a term of 3 years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary.
The question for decision is, may an accused by convicted of conspiracy when the conspiracy is between two persons, one of whom is the accused and the other an informer for the state who participated in the conspiracy for the purpose of informing on the accused?
Cases in this jurisdiction have not dealt with the precise question raised on this appeal, but we have held that a conspiracy is a complete offense. We have also held that neither at common law nor under the statute (§ 97-1-1) is an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy necessary for the completion of the crime. Martin v. State, 197 Miss. 96, 19 So.2d 488 (1944); King v. State, 123 Miss. 532, 86 So. 339 (1920); Isaacs v. State, 48 Miss. 234 (1873); Laura v. State, 26 Miss. 174 (1853).
In King, supra, although the defendants were only indicted for conspiring to make an assault upon and smear tar upon one woman the testimony showed a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act upon at least two women. The commission of the assaults was held admissible as to tending to show the conspiracy, and the Court held that the permissible range of evidence in a conspiracy case is perhaps wider than in any other case. The Court stated: 'What they actually did in this case is evidence of what they intended to do.'
In Martin, supra, the Court affirmed the holding of King and stated that a conspiracy to commit a crime is a complete offense, separate and distinct from the commission of the crime contemplated by the conspiracy and does not become merged in the actual commission of the crime which was the subject of the conspiracy.
Since a conspiracy to commit a crime is different from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy, the first necessarily involves joint action while the other does not. By its very nature conspiracy is a joint or group offense requiring a concert of free will. The union of the minds of at least two persons is a prerequisite to the commission of the offense, or, stated differently, at least two persons must agree for a conspiracy to exist.
Defendant contends that she is not guilty of the crime of conspiracy because conspiracy cannot occur when one of the two parties involved is either a government agent or an informer.
In 15A C.J.S. Conspiracy § 37 (1967) the general rule is stated as follows:
Where one of two persons who has allegedly conspired to do an illegal act is an officer who acted in the discharge of his duties, or a government informer who secretly intended to frustrate the conspiracy, the other person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. . . .
This general rule is supported by decisions from federal courts and in United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453 (4th Cir. 1967) the Court stated:
(I)t cannot be said that this conspiracy continued after April 5, 1965 between Carr and Chase, because it is equally well-established that one who acts as a government agent and enters into a purported conspiracy in the secret role of an informer cannot be a co-conspirator. Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139 (5 Cir. 1965); Developments in the Law-Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harvard Law Review 920, 926 (1959); Note, 13 U. of Miami Law Review 380 (1959); Note, 33 Tulane Law Review 393 (1959). See also, O'Brien v. United States, 51 F.2d 674 (7th Cir. 1931); United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (D.C.Ga.1925).
Carr was arrested on April 5, 1965, confessed to his participation in a conspiracy, and incriminated Chase. At the request of federal officers he agreed to become a government agent and thereafter communicated with Chase and arranged to resume taking bets for the pool conducted by Chase. The Court held that no conspiracy continued between Carr and Chase after Carr became a government agent because he was acting in the secret role of an informer and therefore could not be a co-conspirator.
In the 5th Circuit case of Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1965), Davis, a former bootlegger, worked with government investigators as an undercover agent and informer. Sears was Sheriff of Coffee County, Georgia. The Court held that the jury could not convict Sears merely upon finding that he had accepted money from Davis and furnished protection to him because this would establish only that Sears had combined with Davis, and since it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy when one of the parties to the conspiracy is a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy.
In United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (D.C., N.D.Ga.1925), the District Court held:
If a purchaser and seller of liquor, both knowing the sale to be illegal, can be considered conspirators, still where the purchaser is an officer in the discharge of his duty, there is no indictable conspiracy. But here the indictment charges, also, that the two defendants conspired with one another, and there is evidence in support of this view of the case. The issue as to their conspiracy should be passed upon by the jury. (Emphasis supplied). (8 F.2d at 430).
We therefore hold that where one of two persons who conspire to do an illegal act is an officer who acted in the discharge of his duties, or is an informer for the state who entered into the conspiracy for the purpose of informing on the other party, such other person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. After the elimination of an officer acting in the discharge of his duty, or an informer who conspires solely for the purpose of informing, there must remain at least two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lavary
...urged by defendant is followed by the majority of jurisdictions in this country and by a number of commentators. See Moore v. State, Miss., 290 So.2d 603, 605 (Sup.Ct.1974); Johnson v. Sheriff, Clark Cty., Nev., 532 P.2d 1037, 1038 (Sup.Ct.1975); People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 220 N.W.2d 4......
-
State v. Mazur
...91 Nev. 161, 532 P.2d 1037, 1038 (Sup.Ct.1975); People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 220 N.W.2d 465, 471 (Sup.Ct.1974); Moore v. State, 290 So.2d 603, 605 (Miss.Sup.Ct.1974); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 51 S.W.2d 485, 486-487 (Sup.Ct.1932); see 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 83 (19......
-
State v. Hohensee, 12407
...(1931); see also, generally, 15A C.J.S. Conspiracy § 37, p. 731.10 Defendant cites King v. State, 104 So.2d 730 (Fla.1957); Moore v. State, 290 So.2d 603 (Miss.1974); U.S. v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2nd Cir.1979); U.S. v. Moss, 591 F.2d 428 (8th Cir.1979); Sears v. U.S., 343 F.2d 139 (5th Cir......
-
Magee v. State
...that is the object of the conspiracy, the first necessarily involves joint action while the other does not." Id . (citing Moore v. State , 290 So. 2d 603 (Miss. 1974) ).¶49. Although no case is directly on point as to the argument addressed here, the analysis set forth in Smith v. State , 2......