Opinion ID: 503096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Were appellants properly convicted of conspiring to receive stolen goods?

Text: 8 Appellants were convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 3 of conspiring to commit a crime prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 659. 4 On appeal they argue that their convictions are invalid because a conviction under section 659 requires the government to prove that the defendants bought, received, or possessed goods which were actually stolen. 5 They point out that the electronic equipment in this case had not been stolen but rather had been borrowed by the government with the carrier's permission. Accordingly, they contend that because they could not have been convicted of the substantive offense of possessing stolen merchandise, they should not have been convicted of conspiring to commit the substantive offense. 9 Although some courts have recognized an impossibility defense with regard to attempted crimes, People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169 (1906) (no conviction allowed for attempt to receive stolen property when the property had been restored to its owners and was used with their permission at the time it was offered to the defendant), [c]ourts have generally taken a broader view of the purposes of the law of conspiracy. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law 475 (1972). As one commentary has explained: 10 The antisocial potentialities of a conspiracy, unlike those of an attempt, are not confined to the objects specifically contemplated at any given time. The existence of a grouping for criminal purposes provides a continuing focal point for further crimes either related or unrelated to those immediately envisaged. Moreover, the uneasiness produced by the consciousness that such groupings exist is in itself an important antisocial effect. Consequently, the state has an interest in stamping out conspiracy above and beyond its interest in preventing the commission of any specific substantive offense. 11 Developments in the Law--Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 920, 924-25 (1959). While a charge that a crime has been attempted or committed focuses on the defendant's conduct leading toward the commission of the crime, a charge of conspiracy is concerned more with the intent of the alleged perpetrators. The crime of conspiracy is complete once the conspirators, having formed the intent to commit a crime, take any step in preparation...., State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 187, 244 A.2d 499, 502, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 952, 89 S.Ct. 376, 21 L.Ed.2d 363 (1968), and it is unnecessary that the substantive crime itself be committed. United States v. Rose, 590 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 99 S.Ct. 2859, 61 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979). 12 Accordingly, this circuit has held that for a conspiracy conviction under section 371 to stand, the government did not have to prove that the [items] were actually stolen; it was enough for the government to show that the conspirators conspired [to receive goods] which they believed to be stolen. United States v. Sarro, 742 F.2d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir.1984) (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Bobo, 586 F.2d 355, 371 (5th Cir.1978) (to affirm conspiracy conviction, it need not be shown that the substance [purchased by the defendant] was in fact heroin as long as he thought he was buying a controlled substance and believed he was furthering the ends of the conspiracy), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 976, 99 S.Ct. 1546, 59 L.Ed.2d 795 (1979); 6 United States v. Thompson, 493 F.2d 305 (9th Cir.) (for conviction of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana to stand, it was unnecessary that the government prove that the substance involved was actually marijuana), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 834, 95 S.Ct. 60, 42 L.Ed.2d 60 (1974); United States v. Rose, 590 F.2d at 235 (rejecting defendants' argument that conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce could not exist unless the goods had actually been stolen). 7 In this case, the government provided ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged conspirators believed the goods to have been stolen: Devarone's testimony that he told Fernandez that the goods were stolen, the taped conversations between the government agents and several of the defendants, the agreed-upon price which was far below the value of the merchandise, the slang expressions for stolen goods used by some defendants, and the defendants' actions in scouting around the warehouse looking for police. As such, although appellants could not have been convicted of the substantive offense of receiving stolen property, their convictions for conspiring to receive stolen property cannot be reversed on this ground. 13