Criminal Practice – Multiple Conspiracies – Armed Robbery Spree

State v. Stimpson (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-345-17, 34 pp.) (John Tyson, J.) (Rick Elmore, J., dissenting) Appealed from Guilford County Superior Court (Susan Bray, J.) N.C. App.

Holding: Although defendant and his companions were all wearing dark clothing, and although police found head and face coverings, gloves and weapons inside their Jeep, it was up to the jury to decide whether the conspirators’ five armed robberies during one morning were the result of a single conspiracy or five of them.

We find no error in defendant’s convictions for five counts of conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm.

There was no evidence that defendant and his co-conspirators conspired to engage in as many robberies as they could. They agreed and engaged in random robberies as the opportunities appeared before them.

The crimes were ones of opportunity, where differing victims were accosted and items were stolen from them as defendant and his co-conspirators happened to come upon them.

No evidence limits defendant as engaged in a one-time, pre-planned and organized, ongoing and continuing conspiracy to engage in robbery and the other crimes. In particular, the random nature and happenstance of the robberies and related crimes here do not indicate a one-time, pre-planned conspiracy.

The victims and property stolen were not connected. The victims and crimes committed arose at random and by pure opportunity. Each of the series of crimes on the various victims was committed and completed before defendant and his co-conspirators moved on and happened upon and mutually agreed to rob and commit other crimes on their next targets and victims of opportunity

The question of whether multiple agreements constitute a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies is a question of fact for the jury. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and properly submitted all five conspiracy counts to the jury.

No error.

Dissent

(Elmore, J.) The state failed to present substantial evidence of multiple agreements between defendant and his co-conspirators as required to prove more than one conspiracy. The five robberies were completed in an exceedingly short time interval (two to three hours), the same participants were involved in each robbery, there was a common objective to commit each crime, and the state did not present evidence of five separate agreements between the coconspirators.

I would vacate four of defendant’s five conspiracy convictions and remand for resentencing on the remaining one.