Conn v. State, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 857

Lloyd Conn was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder as a class A felony based on evidence from a 2010 trial.
Stacy Howell, a confidential informant, purchased drugs from Bill Conn (Lloyd’s father); Bill was arrested on three class B felonies.
Bill discussed with Lloyd plans to prevent Stacy from testifying and to “take [her] out.”
Barbara Gambill Spurlock (Bill’s daughter and Lloyd’s sister) and Anthony King participated in surveillance and planning activities.
Lloyd and Bill testified inconsistently; the State presented witnesses and forensic evidence (milk jug silencer test) supporting a conspiracy to murder Stacy Howell.
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, affirming sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy to commit murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proves conspiracy to murder beyond a reasonable doubt	Conn argues no direct agreement; relies on lack of formal agreement	Conn contends no overt acts advancing the plan	Yes; sufficient evidence supports an agreement and overt acts

Minniefield v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind.1987) (conspiracy may rest on circumstantial evidence and overt acts)
Weida v. State, 778 N.E.2d 843 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (overt acts need not prove actual murder to sustain conspiracy)
Dickenson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (cites to proof of conspiracy requirements)
Fry v. State, 748 N.E.2d 369 (Ind.2001) (conspiracy elements—intent and agreement)
Owens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 754 (Ind.2010) (overt act need not be a substantial step like attempt)
Collier v. State, 846 N.E.2d 340 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (overlap of preparation with overt acts for conspiracy)
Smith v. State, 655 N.E.2d 532 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (overt acts may be preparatory but still suffice)
Molina v. State, 621 N.E.2d 1137 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (overt acts illustrating conspiracy)
Chavez v. State, 722 N.E.2d 885 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (concept of overt acts in conspiracy)