Brief Fact Summary. Defendant conspired with his cousin who was working with the police to kill Defendant’s mother. Defendant appeals a conviction for conspiracy and attempted murder.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the individual not feigning acquiescence has conspired within the meaning of the statute in the belief that the other party was with him, his culpability is not decreased by the other’s secret intention.
Issue. Whether the statute requires a meeting of the minds or in other words, two willing conspirators to support a conviction of conspiracy.
Held. Affirmed as the conviction for conspiracy and reversed as to the conviction of attempted first degree murder.
Minnesota will follow the unilateral approach to conspiracy in which there is no requirement that there be a meeting of the minds between the conspirators to support a conviction for conspiracy.
If the individual not feigning acquiescence has conspired within the meaning of the statute in the belief that the other party was with him, his culpability is not decreased by the other’s secret intention.
The following cases, among others, hold: Under a statute providing that if a person conspires with another to commit a crime, and in furtherance of the conspiracy one or more of the parties does some overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy, he may be guilty of conspiracy even though the person with whom he conspired feigned agreement and at no time intended to go through with the plan.View Full Point of Law