American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition
Copyright 2000 by the Lawyer's Co-Operative Publishing Company
Joseph J. Bassano, J.D.
Conspiracy
I. Criminal Liability [§ § 1-49]
A. In General [§ § 1-9]
16 Am Jur 2d CONSPIRACY § 2
§ 2 Definitions and distinctions
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish together a criminal or an unlawful act,n7 or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful,n8 accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of the agreementn9 (in those jurisdictions which require an overt act).n10
Thus, while the provisions of some statutes define the crime of conspiracy as involving an agreement directed to an unlawful act or object but not necessarily a criminal act or objectn11 other statutes require that the conspiratorial objective must be the commission of a crimen12 and under those statutes a conspiracy conviction cannot be sustained by objectives that are merely unlawful, malicious, oppressive, or injurious, as distinct from criminal.n13
In any case, a conspiracy in a legal sense does not exist where both the object of the agreement and the means contemplated for its achievement are lawful.n14
Notwithstanding the fact that the definition of a conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish a criminal or unlawful act or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful is also applicable to a civil conspiracy,n15 the two differ, in that the gist of the tort of conspiracy is damage resulting to the plaintiff from an overt act or acts done pursuant to the conspiracy,n16 while the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement to commit an unlawful act.n17 It has also been said that the gist of the offense of conspiracy is the unlawful combination resulting from the agreement, rather than the mere agreement itself.n18
FOOTNOTES:
n7 U.S. v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 44 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (LCP) 321 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 373, 136 L. Ed. 2d 262 (U.S. 1996); U.S. v. Blackwell, 954 F. Supp. 944 (D.N.J. 1997); U.S. v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) [para]95-5928, 130 A.L.R. Fed. 665 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 796, 133 L. Ed. 2d 744 (U.S. 1996); U.S. v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 1997), reh'g denied, (Aug. 14, 1997) and cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 454 (U.S. 1997) and cert. denied, 1997 WL 739307 (U.S. 1997); U.S. v. Katalinich, 113 F.3d 1475 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 260 (U.S. 1997); U.S. v. Guerrero-Cortez, 110 F.3d 647, 46 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (LCP) 1398 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 1997 WL 473954 (U.S. 1997); U.S. v. Iriarte-Ortega, 113 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion amended on other groundson denial of reh'g, 127 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1997); People v. Swain, 12 Cal. 4th 593, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390, 909 P.2d 994 (1996); State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); Irving v. U.S., 673 A.2d 1284 (D.C. 1996); Webster v. State, 646 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1994), reh'g denied, (Dec. 19, 1994); Lawrence v. State, 665 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), transfer denied, (July 17, 1996); State v. Lankford, 626 So. 2d 1217 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993), reh'g granted, (Dec. 1, 1993) and writ denied, 632 So. 2d 762 (La. 1994); Acquah v. State, 113 Md. App. 29, 686 A.2d 690 (1996); Com. v. Anselmo, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 603 N.E.2d 227 (1992); People v. Buck, 197 Mich. App. 404, 496 N.W.2d 321 (1992), appeal denied, 442 Mich. 859, 498 N.W.2d 742 (1993) and appeal denied (1 pet.), appeal held in abeyance (1 pet.), 498 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. 1993) and application for leave to appeal held in abeyance, 505 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. 1993) and application for leave to appeal held in abeyance, 505 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. 1993) and appeal denied, 521 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 1994); Mitchell v. State, 572 So. 2d 865 (Miss. 1990); Doyle v. State, 112 Nev. 879, 921 P.2d 901 (1996), reh'g denied, (June 23, 1997); State v. Wilson, 338 N.C. 244, 449 S.E.2d 391 (1994); Hackney v. State, 874 P.2d 810 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Com. v. Baskerville, 452 Pa. Super. 82, 681 A.2d 195 (1996), appeal denied, 547 Pa. 723, 689 A.2d 230 (1997); State v. Smith, 662 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 1995); State v. Mouzon, 485 S.E.2d 918 (S.C. 1997); State v. Gaylor, 862 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992), appeal denied, (June 7, 1993); Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1997), reh'g overruled, (Apr. 24, 1997) and petition for discretionary review refused, (Nov. 19, 1997); Moore v. Com., 25 Va. App. 277, 487 S.E.2d 864 (1997); State v. Stevens, 190 W. Va. 77, 436 S.E.2d 312 (1993).
n8 Franklin Union, No. 4, v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N.E. 176 (1906); U. S. v. Hutul, 416 F.2d 607, 18 A.L.R. Fed. 364 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1012, 90 S. Ct. 573, 24 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1970), reh'g denied, 397 U.S. 1081, 90 S. Ct. 1519, 25 L. Ed. 2d 820 (1970) and cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1012, 90 S. Ct. 573, 24 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1970) and cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1012, 90 S. Ct. 573, 24 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1970) and cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1007, 90 S. Ct. 562, 24 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1970) and cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1024, 90 S. Ct. 599, 24 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1970); U. S. v. Heck, 499 F.2d 778, 74-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) [para]9729, 74-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) [para]9730, 34 A.F.T.R.2d (P-H) [para]74-5470 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1088, 95 S. Ct. 677, 42 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1974) and cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1088, 95 S. Ct. 677, 42 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1974) and cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1088, 95 S. Ct. 677, 42 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1974) and cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1088, 95 S. Ct. 678, 42 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1974); Acquah v. State, 113 Md. App. 29, 686 A.2d 690 (1996); Com. v. Anselmo, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 602, 603 N.E.2d 227 (1992); People v. Buck, 197 Mich. App. 404, 496 N.W.2d 321 (1992), appeal denied, 442 Mich. 859, 498 N.W.2d 742 (1993) and appeal denied (1 pet.), appeal held in abeyance (1 pet.), 498 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. 1993) and application for leave to appeal held in abeyance, 505 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. 1993) and application for leave to appeal held in abeyance, 505 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. 1993) and appeal denied, 445 Mich. 937, 521 N.W.2d 607 (1994) and appeal denied, 521 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 1994); State v. Lennon, 3 N.J. 337, 70 A.2d 154 (1949); State v. Rannels, 333 N.C. 644, 430 S.E.2d 254 (1993); State v. Smith, 662 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 1995); State v. Mouzon, 485 S.E.2d 918 (S.C. 1997); State v. Gaylor, 862 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992), appeal denied, (June 7, 1993); State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N.W. 1046 (1901).
An agreement to commit an offense may be criminal even though its purpose is to do what some of the conspirators may be free to do alone. Gebardi v. U.S., 287 U.S. 112, 53 S. Ct. 35, 77 L. Ed. 206, 84 A.L.R. 370 (1932).
n9 U.S. v. Royal, 100 F.3d 1019 (1st Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Blackwell, 954 F. Supp. 944 (D.N.J. 1997); U.S. v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350 (5th Cir. 1994), reh'g granted, (Feb. 25, 1994) and cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1095, 114 S. Ct. 1861, 128 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1994) and cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1114, 114 S. Ct. 2119, 128 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1994) and affd, 116 F.3d 116 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 1997 WL 592591 (U.S. 1997); U.S. v. Warshawsky, 20 F.3d 204, 1994 FED App. 97P (6th Cir. 1994), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, (June 23, 1994)); People v. Swain, 12 Cal. 4th 593, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390, 909 P.2d 994 (1996); State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); Lawrence v. State, 665 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), transfer denied, (July 17, 1996); State v. Lankford, 626 So. 2d 1217 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993), reh'g granted, (Dec. 1, 1993) and writ denied, 632 So. 2d 762 (La. 1994); Hackney v. State, 874 P.2d 810 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Com. v. Tolbert, 448 Pa. Super. 189, 670 A.2d 1172 (1995), reargument denied, (Feb. 29, 1996) and appeal denied, 693 A.2d 588 (Pa. 1997) and cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 230 (U.S. 1997); Crum v. State, 946 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1997), reh'g overruled, (Apr. 24, 1997) and petition for discretionary review refused, (Nov. 19, 1997); State v. Stevens, 190 W. Va. 77, 436 S.E.2d 312 (1993).
n10 § 15.
n11 State v. DiBella, 157 Conn. 330, 254 A.2d 477 (1968).
n12 State v. Kaakimaka, 84 Haw. 280, 933 P.2d 617 (Haw. 1997), reconsideration denied, 84 Haw. 496, 936 P.2d 191 (Haw. 1997).
n13 State v. Kaakimaka, 84 Haw. 280, 933 P.2d 617 (Haw. 1997), reconsideration denied, 84 Haw. 496, 936 P.2d 191 (Haw. 1997).
n14 U.S. v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 2 S. Ct. 531, 27 L. Ed. 698 (1883); U.S. v. Moore, 84 F.3d 1567 (9th Cir. 1996), reh'g en banc granted, 100 F.3d 93 (9th Cir. 1996) and affd on reh'g en banc, 109 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 108 (U.S. 1997); U.S. v. Allemand, 34 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 1994); In re Meagan R., 42 Cal. App. 4th 17, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 325 (4th Dist. 1996); Com. v. Neckerauer, 421 Pa. Super. 255, 617 A.2d 1281 (1992).
n15 For the definition of a civil conspiracy, see § 50.
n16 § 53.
n17 § 10.
n18 U.S. v. Cabrera, 116 F.3d 1243 (8th Cir. 1997); Regle v. State, 9 Md. App. 346, 264 A.2d 119 (1970).
The essence of the crime of conspiracy is the joining together of the conspirators with an unlawful intent. State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 244 A.2d 499, 37 A.L.R.3d 364 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 952, 89 S. Ct. 376, 21 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1968).
The combination for the illegal purpose or for the use of illegal means is the essence of conspiracy. Attorney General v. Tufts, 239 Mass. 458, 132 N.E. 322, 17 A.L.R. 274 (1921).