State v. Douglas J. Huntley, 171 A.3d 1003

On April 23, 2014, Sabrina Weston, a second-floor tenant at 38 Bergen Street, Providence, observed two unknown men attempt to manipulate the locked front door, go to the rear, and one "pop the lock" and enter the first-floor apartment through a window. Weston overheard them discuss how to enter.
Weston called 9-1-1. Police officers arrived, found the first-floor apartment dark and sparsely furnished, and discovered defendant Douglas J. Huntley hiding under the kitchen table with two firearms nearby and plastic bags of crack cocaine in his jacket.
Defendant was tried on a ten-count information; after a five-day jury trial he was convicted of simple possession, possession of a firearm after a prior violent felony, carrying a firearm without a license, breaking and entering (count 9), and conspiracy to commit breaking and entering (count 10); other counts were dismissed or resulted in acquittal.
Posttrial motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial as to counts 9 and 10 were denied; defendant was sentenced to 20 years (12 to serve, 8 suspended). He appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
On appeal, defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction (count 10) and (2) sufficiency/new-trial error on the breaking-and-entering conviction (count 9). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Huntley's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit breaking and entering (count 10)	Weston overheard the men plan and attempt to "jimmy"/"pop" the lock; one entered through a window; defendant was found hiding with guns — direct evidence of an agreement	Evidence insufficient; prosecution failed to prove an agreement beyond speculation; co-conspirator unidentified; alleged impermissible pyramiding of inferences	Court held evidence (eyewitness overhearing and observed conduct) was sufficient to prove a conspiracy; identity of co-conspirator not required; conviction affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence / consent issue for breaking and entering (count 9)	Testimony and circumstances supported unlawful, nonconsensual entry; defendant was found hiding inside with firearms and drugs	Argues state failed to prove lack of consent and claims material variance between pleadings and evidence, warranting acquittal or new trial	Court deemed this argument waived for failure to raise below and affirmed the conviction

State v. Abdullah, 967 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2009) (conspiracy defined as agreement by two or more to commit an unlawful act)
State v. Lassiter, 836 A.2d 1096 (R.I. 2003) (conspiracy may be established by relations, conduct, and circumstances)
State v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190 (R.I. 2005) (circumstantial evidence can prove agreement)
State v. Tully, 110 A.3d 1181 (R.I. 2015) (conspiracy conviction may stand though co-conspirators’ identities are unknown)
State v. Vargas, 21 A.3d 347 (R.I. 2011) (permissible use of logical deduction from circumstantial facts)
State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408 (R.I. 2011) (limits on stacking inferences; cannot draw inferences from ambiguous inferences)
State v. Mastracchio, 612 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1992) (conspiracy complete upon agreement; overt act not required)
Waldman v. Shipyard Marina, Inc., 230 A.2d 841 (R.I. 1967) (an inference resting on another inference is weak where facts support alternative reasonable inferences)