State v. Clark, 2015 ND 201

Clark and Crowe, acquaintances, committed Swain’s murder in Bismarck after an alcohol-fueled plan discussed May 11, 2013.
Clark testified he and Crowe were upset about women in their lives; he acknowledged possibly saying they were mad enough to kill, but not serious.
Crowe allegedly hit Swain with a hammer; Clark testified Crowe invited Swain back to Crowe’s apartment where the killing began.
Clark admitted helping dismember Swain’s body, clean up, and dispose of evidence; he claimed some acts occurred after the conspiracy ended.
Crowe did not testify; Clark was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder following a jury verdict.
The district court judgment was appealed and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of a conspiratorial agreement	Clark argues no evidence of an agreement to murder	Clark argues statement was not a true agreement and post-death acts are irrelevant	Yes; sufficient circumstantial evidence supports implicit agreement

State v. Addai, 2010 ND 29 (ND 2010) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in conspiracy cases; circumstantial evidence permissible)
State v. Cain, 2011 ND 213 (ND 2011) (agreement may be inferred from conduct; ongoing offense contacts permissible)
State v. Rambousek, 479 N.W.2d 832 (ND 1992) (distinguishes North Dakota conspiracy law from federal bilateral theory)
In Interest of J.A.G., 552 N.W.2d 317 (ND 1996) (agreement may be shown by conduct of the parties)
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1957) (federal overt-act/concealment distinctions not controlling here)
United States v. Todd, 657 F.2d 212 (8th Cir. 1981) (federal case deemed not sufficiently prove agreement in that context)
Noorlun, 2005 ND 189, 705 N.W.2d 819 (ND 2005) (discusses elements of conspiracy under North Dakota law)