Court Opinion

ID: 9712138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:47:06.811104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:10.237343
License: Public Domain

*503GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case.
The majority is correct in its observation concerning the conspiracy statute, Ind. Code § 35-41-5-2, which states that it is no defense that a co-conspirator has been acquitted. While such a statement in a statute might be upheld in a specific factual situation, the facts in the case at bar appear to present a fundamental error as outlined by Judge Robertson in his unpublished opinion.
In the case of Berry v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 294, 305, 173 N.E. 705, 706, Judge Willoughby discussed this precise situation and held that the conviction of one co-conspirator should not be allowed to stand after the acquittal of his co-conspirator. To do so would result in a “repugnancy upon the record.” Although Judge Wil-loughby’s statement in Berry is dictum, he cites three old English cases to support his position.
Judge Robertson does not cite Berry nor does he cite the old English cases cited therein, but his result tracks that proposition of law. Although I wrote a dissenting opinion in Woods v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 624, 413 N.E.2d 572, in which Judge Prentice reversed Woods’ conviction, the reversal nevertheless stands for the proposition that the evidence in the case, as to both Woods and Kiger, was insufficient to support a conspiracy.
I therefore feel that Judge Robertson’s decision reaches the right conclusion and transfer should not be granted in this case.