D was the driver of a car carrying two other men. D stopped the car, and one of the men called the victim over to the curb.
When the victim refused to come over, the two men got out of the car then beat and robbed the victim. D drove the men away from the scene.
D was charged with simple assault, robbery, and conspiracy.
Trial court found D guilty of assault, robbery, and conspiracy.
Can the prosecution prove a conspiracy when there is no proof of an agreement amongst the conspirators?
Is the simple act of driving the getaway car a sufficient overt act to prove a conspiracy?
The prosecution can prove a conspiracy even when there is no proof of an agreement amongst the conspirators through the use of circumstantial evidence.
The simple act of driving the getaway car is a sufficient overt act to prove a conspiracy.
By its very nature, conspiracy is frequently not susceptible to proof except by circumstantial evidence.
A conspiracy may be inferentially established by showing the relationship, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt acts on the part of the co-conspirators.
Conspiracy to commit burglary has been found where the D drove co-Ds to the scene of the crime and then later picked them up. There is no merit in the claims that the D here was merely a hired driver with no knowledge of his passengers' criminal activity.