Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Pleadings and the Evidence to Support the Conviction for Conspiracy

Text: Count 12 of the information charged defendant with the crime of conspiracy at and in the County of Humboldt, and it alleged that defendant committed 13 overt acts in support of the conspiracy. But the information alleged that defendant committed the conspiracy on or about the months of April to September, 1982, whereas the earliest date on which it alleged defendant committed any overt act was January 15, 1983. (13) Defendant contends that the information was fatally defective because it did not allege that defendant committed any overt act during the time of the conspiracy. Alternatively, he argues that there was no substantial evidence at trial that he committed any conspiracy in Humboldt County on the dates alleged in the information. These contentions are unavailing. Any uncertainty caused by the wording of the information was dispelled by the verdict form, which recited that defendant was charged with a conspiracy formed between April and September 1982, and ending in March 1983. The verdict of guilty entered on this form is supported by substantial evidence. Michael Thompson testified that the AB leadership decided during the summer of 1982 to kill disloyal AB members or their immediate family, including Richard Barnes; that this assignment was given to defendant; that he was instructed to prepare for the assignment by obtaining weapons in Northern California; and that defendant accepted the assignment. The prosecution introduced other evidence to show that defendant committed various acts in Humboldt County in January and February of 1983 to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy. By not demurring to the information's conspiracy charge, the defense waived the claim that the conspiracy charge was ambiguous or uncertain. ( People v. Thomas (1986) 41 Cal.3d 837, 843 [226 Cal. Rptr. 107, 718 P.2d 94]; People v. Jackson (1978) 88 Cal. App.3d 490, 500 [151 Cal. Rptr. 688].) Assuming the information was ambiguous, defendant could not have been misled. The preliminary hearing evidence gave defendant ample notice of the charge against which he was required to defend. ( People v. Paul (1978) 78 Cal. App.3d 32, 43 [144 Cal. Rptr. 431].)