Opinion ID: 2010520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conspiracy Theory Properly Eliminated

Text: In this appeal, Banther argues that the trial judge's failure to properly focus the jury by giving a preliminary limiting instruction was a violation of this Court's mandate and constitutes reversible error. In Banther's 2005 direct appeal, this Court held that because both the conspiracy and accomplice-liability statutes contain an `agreement' element, the earlier conspiracy acquittal precluded the State, as a matter of law, from arguing that Banther agreed to aid his co-defendant and identified principal, John Schmitz, in `planning' the murder in order to establish accomplice liability. [15] In our 2005 opinion, we stated: The earlier jury must have rejected the fact of an agreement between Banther and Schmitz, to find Banther not guilty of conspiracy to murder Ravers. As a consequence, the State was collaterally estopped from advancing an accomplice-liability theory predicated on Banther agreeing to aid Schmitz in planning the murder. [16] Prior to Banther's third trial, he filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, or in the alternative to limit evidence and argument. The trial judge denied the defense motion to dismiss the indictment. But, the trial judge did grant, in part, Banther's alternative request to preclude the State from presenting evidence or argument at trial from which the jury may infer that a conspiracy to commit murder existed between the defendant and Schmitz. [17] Following that ruling, Banther was aware that the State intended to introduce the same evidence during his third trial that was used at Banther's previous two trials for the purpose of establishing Banther's accomplice liability for Ravers' death. In this appeal, Banther acknowledges that prior [e]vidence repeatedly linked Banther and Schmitz to the murder weapon, the murder scene, the vehicles involved, the potential motive, the murder victim, and established that Banther and Schmitz were personally close friends. The record reflects that the State's evidence at Banther's first and second trials did not include any direct proof of planning but simply provided the circumstantial basis for the State to make a planning argument. Therefore, Banther asked the trial judge to instruct the jurors in advance that they may not interpret the State's argument or any evidence to follow as suggesting any agreement or conspiracy between John Schmitz and Bruce Banther to kill Dennis Ravers. The trial judge denied that motion. The record reflects that, in accordance with our mandate, the State did not present any evidence or argument that Banther and Ravers agreed or planned in advance to kill Ravers. The State's evidence from Banther's prior two trials was properly used to support the State's argument that Banther was liable for Ravers' death as an accomplice to Schmitz after Schmitz began to attack Ravers. Accordingly, there is no merit to Banther's argument that the Superior Court permitted the State to introduce either evidence or argument that violated our mandate.