## Facts

- Shirley Garcia, experiencing severe marital difficulties, told her neighbor, Allen Young, that her husband abused her and her children.
- Garcia repeatedly sought Young’s help to find someone to kill her husband and expressed a desire to have him eliminated.
- Young contacted police and cooperated in a sting operation; he never intended to assist in any killing and only pretended to agree.
- Police recorded Young’s interactions with Garcia and introduced an undercover officer as a prospective hired killer.
- Garcia gave the undercover officer money, a photograph of her husband, and information about her husband’s routine to facilitate the killing.
- Garcia was arrested after the staged exchange and charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy when the supposed co-conspirator is a police informant who feigns agreement and lacks intent to commit the crime.
2. Whether Indiana’s conspiracy statute requires proof of an actual mutual agreement between two culpable parties (bilateral conspiracy) or only the defendant’s belief in an agreement (unilateral conspiracy).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed Garcia’s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder.
- The court held that Indiana law follows a unilateral approach: the State need not prove the other participant actually intended to commit the crime or could be prosecuted.
- The informant’s lack of intent and feigned assent did not negate Garcia’s conspiracy liability where Garcia believed an agreement existed and acted to advance the plan.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana’s conspiracy statute, it is no defense that the person with whom the defendant allegedly conspired cannot be prosecuted for any reason, including lack of criminal intent.
- Indiana recognizes unilateral conspiracy: the defendant’s intent and belief that an agreement exists can satisfy the agreement element even if the other party is an informant or undercover officer.
- A conspiracy conviction may rest on the defendant’s conduct demonstrating intent to commit the object offense and steps taken to further it, notwithstanding the other party’s feigned participation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Indiana’s conspiracy statute permits conviction when the defendant believes she has agreed with another to commit a crime and acts in furtherance of that plan, even if the only other participant is a police informant who never intended to carry out the offense.


Garcia v. State, 394 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. 1979)