FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4440

_____________________________

CHARLES T. NEWCOMB,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

September 9, 2019

ROWE, J.

Charles T. Newcomb appeals his conviction for conspiracy to 

commit first-degree murder. He raises four arguments for reversal. 

We affirm on all four arguments and write only to address his 

argument challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

judgment of acquittal.

Background

The charges against Newcomb stemmed from an FBI 

investigation into the activities of the Ku Klux Klan in the St. 

Augustine area. The FBI’s domestic terrorism task force recruited 

a civilian confidential informant to infiltrate the Klan. The CI 
2

joined one of the three area chapters and obtained a high-level 

security position in the Klan by inflating his military credentials. 

At a Klan gathering in December 2014, Newcomb, David 

Moran, and Thomas Driver approached the CI. The men asked the 

CI to help them plan the murder of a man who had assaulted 

Driver. Based on this conversation, the FBI equipped the CI with 

electronic devices to record his interactions with the three men. 

The recordings of several interactions led to charges against the 

three men for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Driver 

entered a plea. Newcomb and Moran went to trial.

Trial

At trial, the CI testified that Newcomb, Moran, and Driver

first approached him about the murder plot during a Klan 

gathering. Moran told the CI that Driver needed his help. Driver 

explained that he was a corrections officer and that a man bit him 

during an altercation in the prison. Driver showed the CI a picture 

of the man. Driver said that the man tested positive for Hepatitis 

C. Blood tests first showed that the man transferred the disease 

to Driver. Driver learned months later that the test produced a

false positive. He had to undergo months of unnecessary blood 

work.

Newcomb and Moran told the CI that they wanted him to do 

something about Driver’s attacker, who had been released from 

prison. The CI asked Moran and Driver if he should beat up the 

man. They were not interested in a beating. The CI asked if they 

wanted the man “six feet under.” Moran and Driver looked at each 

other, and then responded affirmatively. Next, the CI asked 

Newcomb if he wanted the man “six feet under,” and Newcomb had 

the same response. The CI reported the conversation to the FBI. 

The FBI asked the CI to record future conversations with 

Newcomb, Moran, and Driver. Recordings of the interactions that 

follow were admitted into evidence and played for the jury. 

First, the CI and Newcomb discussed what they needed to do

about the attack on Driver. Newcomb called the attack “attempted 

murder.” Newcomb expressed that he and Moran wanted to handle 

the situation without Driver’s involvement. He stated that any 
3

action taken against the attacker should occur when Driver was at 

work so Driver would have an alibi. Newcomb volunteered to help 

locate the man and stated that he “could walk right up and put 

him out of his misery.”

Two weeks later, Newcomb asked the CI if he was available 

the next weekend to take care of Driver’s problem. Newcomb told 

the CI that Moran said that he would join them. The CI agreed to

join them. The CI also reported to Newcomb that he found the 

attacker’s home in Palatka and that a river was nearby. Newcomb 

asked if they were “just going to snatch him up right there and 

take him to the river or how are we going to work this?” He also 

told the CI that he planned to buy several items to protect them 

from contracting Hepatitis C from the attacker.

The next weekend, the CI arranged to meet Moran and 

Newcomb at Newcomb’s house. The three planned to drive to 

Palatka to find Driver’s attacker. The CI arrived at Newcomb’s 

house before Moran. Newcomb informed the CI that he cleaned 

some ammunition so it would not have any fingerprints on it. He 

also revealed that he had a cooler containing several bottles of his 

wife’s insulin. He proposed killing Driver’s attacker by injecting 

him with insulin, then dumping the body into the nearby river. He 

thought they should bring a fishing pole to place near the man’s 

body to make it appear that the man died while fishing. 

When Moran arrived, the three men departed in the CI’s car. 

The FBI had equipped the car with recording devices. The recorded 

conversation revealed Newcomb sharing with Moran the plan to 

inject Driver’s attacker with insulin and to stage his death. 

Newcomb said that he had two needles full of insulin ready to go 

in case they found the man. He further expressed a willingness to 

shoot Driver’s attacker, “I mean if we have to do pow pow, we will, 

but I was trying to do it quietly, calls less attention to us.” As they 

approached Palatka, Moran pondered whether they ought to turn 

off their cell phones. 

When the men arrived, they observed an unusually large 

police presence in the area. The FBI arranged the show of force to 

protect Driver’s attacker from the men. The men abandoned their 

plans and drove back to Newcomb’s home. 
4

After they returned home, the CI asked Driver if he still 

wanted the problem resolved. Driver wanted his attacker 

terminated. The CI told Driver he would hire a professional to take 

care of the problem and asked about Driver’s work schedule “for 

alibi purposes.”

The CI then reported back to the FBI. The FBI contacted 

Driver’s attacker and obtained his cooperation to take a 

photograph that would make it appear that he had died from a 

gunshot wound to the chest. The FBI gave the photograph to the 

CI to prove that the attacker was dead.

The CI then showed the photograph to Moran, Newcomb, and 

Driver. Newcomb voiced his satisfaction with the apparent 

murder. Driver stated that the attacker’s death was what he 

wanted and that he was happy with the outcome. The CI then 

showed the photograph to Moran. Moran exclaimed: “Ha-ha, oh, 

shit. Ha-ha, oh, shit. I love it . . . . good job.” He boasted that the 

attacker’s death resulted from a group effort between the CI, 

Newcomb, Driver, and himself. This was the last of the recorded 

conversations. 

Besides the recorded conversations, the State presented 

testimony from the medical examiner. He confirmed that the plan 

to inject the attacker with insulin likely would have caused death. 

He opined that injecting a non-diabetic person with two vials of 

insulin would cause death and it would be difficult to determine 

the cause of death during an autopsy. The State closed its case. 

Newcomb’s counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, 

asserting that the evidence did not show that Newcomb conspired 

with Moran and Driver to kill Driver’s attacker. He also argued 

that there was no conspiracy because the CI was the only person 

who planned to commit the essential act of the conspiracy—

murder. The motion was denied.

Newcomb’s counsel renewed the motion for judgment of 

acquittal at the close of the defense’s case. The trial court denied 

the motion. The jury found Newcomb guilty of conspiracy to 

commit first-degree murder. This appeal follows. 
5

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment for 

acquittal de novo. Dunn v. State, 206 So. 3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2016). If the State presents competent, substantial evidence to 

establish every element of the crime, then judgment of acquittal is 

improper. State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 

Analysis

Newcomb contends that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion for judgment of acquittal. First, he argues that the evidence 

failed to show that he conspired to kill Driver’s attacker. Second, 

he claims that there was no conspiracy because a necessary 

element of the conspiracy—the murder—was to be performed

exclusively by the CI. We reject both arguments.

First, the State presented competent, substantial evidence to 

establish that Newcomb conspired with Moran and Driver to kill 

Driver’s attacker. “A conspiracy exists where there is an express 

or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a 

criminal offense and an intention to commit the offense. The factfinder may infer the agreement from the circumstances; direct 

proof is not necessary.” Vasquez v. State, 111 So. 3d 273, 275 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2013) (internal citation omitted). And “[a] defendant may 

be found guilty of conspiracy if he had knowledge of the essential 

objective and voluntarily became a part of it, even if he lacked 

knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy or played only a 

minor role in the total operation.” Cummings v. State, 514 So. 2d 

406, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing United States v. Bascaro, 742 

F.2d 1335, 1359 (11th Cir. 1984)). 

Newcomb knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy to 

kill Driver’s attacker and fully intended to participate in the 

murder. Newcomb agreed with Driver and Moran that Driver’s 

attacker needed to be put “six feet under.” Newcomb and Moran 

spoke several times about the plot to kill the man. He was the one 

that contacted the CI and set the date for the group to drive to 

Palatka. Newcomb prepared to kill Driver’s attacker by buying and 

cleaning special ammunition and by saving his wife’s extra insulin 

to use as a murder weapon. Newcomb kept the insulin chilled so it 
6

would not lose its potency and pre-loaded syringes with the drug. 

He was the first to suggest that they should snatch the man off 

street. He also engaged in discussions about staging the man’s 

body to make it appear that he died while fishing. Viewed in the 

light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to 

allow the jury to conclude that Newcomb conspired to murder 

Driver’s attacker. See Bradley v. State, 787 So 2d. 732, 740-41 (Fla. 

2001) (concluding evidence was sufficient to find Bradley guilty of 

conspiracy to murder Mr. Jones where the testimony showed that 

Mrs. Jones wanted Mr. Jones dead, that Mrs. Jones and Bradley 

called each other right before and after the murder, and Bradley 

said he was expecting a payoff from Mrs. Jones). 

Second, we reject Newcomb’s argument that there could be no 

conspiracy because the CI was the only co-conspirator who 

intended to perform the essential objectives of the conspiracy. It is 

true that there can be no criminal conspiracy where two or more 

persons conspire with a government agent with the intention that 

“an essential ingredient of the offense is to be performed by, and 

only by, such government agent.” Orantes v. State, 452 So. 2d 68, 

71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (quoting King v. State, 104 So. 2d 730, 733 

(Fla. 1957)) (emphasis added). But here, the CI was not the only 

person who agreed to participate in the murder. Newcomb made 

many statements and took several actions that showed his intent 

to participate in the murder of Driver’s attacker.

Indeed, Newcomb was the person who kept in contact with the 

CI and made sure that the plan to murder Driver’s attacker kept 

moving forward. He referred to the assault on Driver as 

“attempted murder” and expressed a willingness to do what he 

needed to do to protect his Klan family. Newcomb volunteered to 

walk up to the man and “put him out of his misery.” He organized 

the men for the drive to Palatka for the sole purpose of finding

Driver’s attacker and murdering him. Newcomb brought his wife’s 

insulin on ice to use as a murder weapon and had the syringes 

loaded and ready to use. If they could not get close enough to the 

man, Newcomb was willing to shoot the man with the ammunition 

he wiped clean of fingerprints. He even asked the CI to stop the 

car as they approached Palatka so he could have his guns ready. 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was 

sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the co-conspirators did 
7

not intend that the essential objective of the conspiracy would be 

performed by and only by the CI. Rather, Newcomb and Moran, by 

their words and actions, showed they were prepared to participate 

in the murder of Driver’s attacker. See Orantes, 452 So. 2d at 71 

(holding that the rule announced in King did not apply when the 

evidence showed that a non-government agent conspired to 

commit all the elements of the charged offense).

Because there was competent, substantial evidence to support 

the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, the trial 

court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. 

Newcomb’s judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Charles M. Collins of Collins Law Firm, Monticello, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.