We have long held that threats against potential witnesses are attempts to conceal or suppress implicating evidence, and are admissible as bearing upon a defendant's guilty knowledge. As an investigator, Detective Marsh was a potential witness at the time the threat was made, and he did in fact testify at the trial. Neal also argues that Shewmaker inaccurately related the story. However, the conflict between the testimony of Shewmaker and Neal goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The trial court was correct to allow this testimony.
Double jeopardy applies to successive punishments, as well as successive prosecutions.
We have long held that a charge and a conviction for both a substantive offense and conspiracy to commit that offense does not in and of itself violate double jeopardy. This applies to murder as well as to other offenses. Applying Blockburger, we find that the offense of murder requires proof of knowingly or intentionally killing a person, while conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit the underlying felony as well as an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. However, this is not the end of the analysis. We must look at the way in which the offenses are charged.