Opinion ID: 2618245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Continuing Conspiracy

Text: (17a) Defendants next argue that, assuming there existed a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, the trial court erred by finding that the conspiracy was ongoing at the time of trial. In so ruling, defendants claim, the trial court improperly prolonged the life of the conspiracy and, concomitantly, the ability of the prosecution to rely on the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Defendants urge us to find the conspiracy ended with the death of the victims. (18) The general rule is that a conspiracy usually comes to an end when the substantive crime for which the coconspirators are being tried is either attained or defeated. ( People v. Saling (1972) 7 Cal.3d 844, 852 [103 Cal. Rptr. 698, 500 P.2d 610].) [An] insurance conspiracy would normally ... terminate[] upon the receipt of the insurance proceeds. ( Leach, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 436.) It is for the trier of fact  considering the unique circumstances and the nature and purpose of the conspiracy of each case  to determine precisely when the conspiracy has ended. ( Saling, supra, at p. 852; People v. Humphries (1986) 185 Cal. App.3d 1315, 1334 [230 Cal. Rptr. 536].) (17b) The evidence in this case reveals that the primary goal of the conspiracy was the acquisition of money through the receipt of the insurance benefits. This case is thus unlike Leach, supra, 15 Cal.3d 419, in which we cautioned that a conspiracy to commit murder does not necessarily entail[] a second conspiracy to collect the insurance proceeds which will be paid as a matter of course upon the successful commission of the contemplated offense. ( Id. at p. 435.) Instead, the evidence (and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom) reveals Cliff Morgan, Reilly, Hardy, and others embarked on an intricate plan to defraud two insurance companies. (See Humphries, supra, 185 Cal. App.3d at p. 1333 [the objective was monetary gain, not the removal of another person].) After holding a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 403, the trial court concluded the evidence demonstrated prima facie a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. In addition, it found that the conspiracy to defraud the insurance companies was a continuing one. [11] We agree. The conspiracy did not, as defendants argue, end with the death of the insureds. Instead, for purposes of this case, it continued until the coconspirators received the insurance proceeds ( Leach, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 436), or Morgan was convicted of unjustifiable homicide of the victims, thus disabling him from legally collecting the insurance proceeds. ( Saling, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 852 [conspiracy ends when substantive crime is defeated].) [12] Because the insurance companies had not yet paid out at the time of trial, the conspiracy was a continuing one, permitting the introduction of hearsay statements made during the time between the crime and the trial, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1223. In so holding, we decline to accept defendants' invitation to find the trial court improperly extended the life of the conspiracy to permit the introduction of their coconspirators' hearsay statements against them. We are fully cognizant of Justice Jackson's eloquent admonition that the looseness and pliability of the doctrine [of conspiracy] present inherent dangers which should be in the background of judicial thought wherever it is sought to extend the doctrine to meet the exigencies of a particular case. ( Krulewitch v. United States (1949) 336 U.S. 440, 449 [93 L.Ed. 790, 797, 69 S.Ct. 716] [conc. opn. of Jackson, J.], quoted with approval in Leach, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 435.) Considering the independent evidence presented at trial of a conspiracy to defraud the insurance companies, however, we conclude that no improper inflation of conspiracy liability occurred here. We also note that a conspiracy theory was not pressed in this case solely to provide a vehicle for using otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence against a defendant. ( Leach, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 435.) Instead, both Reilly and Hardy were charged with and convicted of the substantive offense of conspiracy under section 182.