People v. Lauria

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant knew that prostitutes used her answering service and yet allowed them to do so. Defendant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge to commit prostitution and the State appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by direct evidence or through an inference that he intends to participate based on his special interest in the activity or aggravated nature of the crime itself.

Facts. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit prostitution. The State alleged that Defendant offered an answering service for the others to use for their call girl activity. The trial court set aside the indictment as having been brought without reasonable or probable cause. The State timely appealed.

Issue. Under what circumstances does a supplier become a part of a conspiracy to further an illegal enterprise by furnishing goods or services which he knows are to be used by the buyer for criminal purposes?

Held. The order is affirmed.
The State must offer sufficient proof of intent to further the criminal enterprise by either direct evidence or by evidence of circumstances from which intent can be inferred.

Intent may be inferred from knowledge when the supplier of the legal goods for illegal use has acquired a stake in the criminal venture, e.g. inflated prices.

Intent may be inferred from knowledge when the volume of business with the supplier is mostly from the illegal venture.

With respect to misdemeanors, we conclude that positive knowledge of the supplier that his products or services are being used for criminal purposes does not, without more, establish the intent of the supplier to participate in the misdemeanors.

The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by direct evidence or through an inference that he intends to participate based on his special interest in the activity or aggravated nature of the crime itself.

Discussion. The Court commenced the ruling by noting that there was a split on whether a supplier could be convicted of the conspiracy for which his goods were being used to further. The Court found no proof that Defendant took any direct action to further, encourage or direct the prostitution activities. The Court noted that aggravated crimes such as felonies would make this even remote participate enough to sustain a conviction for conspiracy. However the court noted that Defendant ran a legitimate business and because of the nature of the crime and lack of incentive to Defendant in allowing the others to use her answering service, she was not guilty of conspiracy.