son-of-bowmancabin
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's one other piece of mind-numbing legal information for consideration. I believe that this is some illustrative case law regarding conspiracy.
State (of Kansas) v. Crockett
As I've said before, proving conspiracy can be very tricky. In short, it looks like there must be an initial agreement among conspirators that is followed by an overt action.
Hypothetically, if RoHo says he agreed with EK to commit murder, RoHo is guilty of conspiracy because he followed the agreement with an overt act: the actual murder. If EK followed up the agreement with an action of any kind - whether legal or illegal - to further the conspiracy, he also would be guilty. However, if EK did nothing after agreeing that RoHo to commit murder, then EK is not guilty of conspiracy.
It is interesting (to me, anyway) to read all the cited case law in this appellate decision, but the most on point seems to be this:
And, finally, a bit of trivia on the linked Crockett case -- Judge Gernon wrote the opinion and he's from Sabetha.
State (of Kansas) v. Crockett
As I've said before, proving conspiracy can be very tricky. In short, it looks like there must be an initial agreement among conspirators that is followed by an overt action.
Hypothetically, if RoHo says he agreed with EK to commit murder, RoHo is guilty of conspiracy because he followed the agreement with an overt act: the actual murder. If EK followed up the agreement with an action of any kind - whether legal or illegal - to further the conspiracy, he also would be guilty. However, if EK did nothing after agreeing that RoHo to commit murder, then EK is not guilty of conspiracy.
It is interesting (to me, anyway) to read all the cited case law in this appellate decision, but the most on point seems to be this:
In State v. Hobson, 234 Kan. 133, 134-35, 671 P.2d 1365 (1983), Sueanne Hobson appealed her convictions of first-degree murder of her stepson and conspiracy to commit murder. The evidence suggested that Hobson asked her son to help her "get rid of" her stepson. 234 Kan. at 135. Hobson promised her son she would buy him a car if he would kill Hobson's stepson. The court, in evaluating the jury instructions given at trial, stated: "The facts tending to establish the appellant hired or procured others to kill [her stepson] would not, standing alone, have established the additional element of an overt act required to support the charge of conspiracy." 234 Kan. at 140.
And, finally, a bit of trivia on the linked Crockett case -- Judge Gernon wrote the opinion and he's from Sabetha.