Opinion ID: 2046772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Defendants were charged and convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (heroin) and of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance (heroin). Only the conspiracy convictions are challenged and argued on appeal under this assignment. Any question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the delivery verdicts are, therefore, deemed waived under Appellate Rule 8.3(A). The defendants' argument as to the insufficiency of the evidence does not reckon with the fundamental rule of appellate review. When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue upon appeal, this Court will consider only that evidence of probative value most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. If such evidence and inferences would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not disturbed. Baum v. State (1976), Ind., 345 N.E.2d 831, 834. Looking to the evidence favorable to the State, we find that on Christmas Day 1974, Danny Robbins and Karen Sawyer went to Diggs' house. Williams was present. Diggs gave Robbins and Sawyer two capsules of heroin. Robbins testified: And the second time we went back that day was around  best I can remember it was around 12:30 or 1:00 o'clock, and they were  Boogie (Diggs) and String (Williams) and a couple girls in the front room and another guy in the kitchen, they were having a party. They asked me if I wanted a drink or whatever, but I didn't drink at the time so I didn't take any. And so, we were just sitting around the living room and I asked Boogie if he had any dope and he said yes. I asked him could I buy some, and he looked over to String, String gave him the nod, and then I looked back at Boogie then and Boogie walked over and he said  don't remember exactly what he said to Karen, but he gave Karen a cap of dope and said it was for Christmas. And he was messing with me, you know, he went over and sat back down for a second and then couple minutes later he came over and gave me a cap. Question: And did you use the dope you obtained that day? Answer: Yes. Question: Did you cook it? Answer: Yes. Question: Did you inject it? Answer: Yes. Question: And what sort of reaction did you get? Answer: Well, it was heroin, it was heroin. I got the effect from heroin from it pretty good, but they weren't as good as the dope had been the previous day. (Tr. pp. 257-258). The elements of conspiracy are set out in Robertson v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 368, 108 N.E.2d 711, 712: In order to be a conspiracy there must be an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understandingly to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the acts and commit the offense, though the agreement is not manifest by any formal words. Concurrence of sentiment and co-operative conduct in the unlawful and criminal enterprise are the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy. There must be an agreement and there must be evidence to prove the agreement directly, or such a state of facts that an agreement may be legally inferred.    The evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict upon the conspiracy charge. We find no reversible error, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur. DE BRULER, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.