## Facts

- David Wayne Sconce was charged by information with conspiracy to commit murder based on an alleged plan to kill Elie Estephan, the estranged husband of Cindy Strunk.
- Strunk worked at the Cremation Society of California and met Sconce through the funeral and cremation business; she disclosed that Estephan had a $250,000 life insurance policy naming her as beneficiary.
- After an incident in which Estephan chased Strunk and pushed her down stairs, Sconce discussed paying for Estephan’s killing, including asking an employee whether he would “get rid of” Estephan for $10,000.
- According to preliminary-hearing testimony, Sconce asked employee Bob Garcia to arrange a murder, stated that he and others were plotting the killing, and offered Garcia $10,000 to kill Estephan.
- Garcia recruited Herbert Dutton, offering $5,000, and Garcia and Dutton conducted surveillance at Estephan’s home and discussed using a bomb under Estephan’s car.
- About three weeks after hiring Garcia, Sconce told Garcia to abandon the plan; no attempt was carried out.
- The trial court granted Sconce’s Penal Code § 995 motion and set aside the information, reasoning that Sconce withdrew before any overt act sufficient to complete conspiracy.
- The People appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s withdrawal from a conspiracy, communicated after acts have been taken in furtherance of the plan, bars prosecution for the completed crime of conspiracy.
2. Whether hiring or contacting an intermediary to arrange a killing constitutes the overt act needed to complete conspiracy to commit murder.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order setting aside the information and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that conspiracy was complete once an agreement existed and an overt act in furtherance occurred.
- The court concluded that the conspiracy was complete no later than Sconce’s hiring of Garcia to find someone to kill Estephan, which satisfied the overt-act requirement.
- The court held that withdrawal, even if effective, does not negate liability for conspiracy once an overt act has been committed; it may only limit liability for later substantive offenses by co-conspirators.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy is complete upon (1) an agreement to commit a crime and (2) the commission of any overt act in furtherance of the agreement; the overt-act requirement is minimal.
- Once participation in a conspiracy is shown, it is presumed to continue unless the defendant proves effective withdrawal as a defense.
- Effective withdrawal requires an affirmative, bona fide repudiation of the conspiracy, communicated to co-conspirators.
- Withdrawal is a complete defense to conspiracy only if accomplished before any overt act is committed.
- Withdrawal after completion of the conspiracy does not erase liability for the conspiracy itself, though it may cut off liability for later substantive crimes committed by others.

## Conclusion

The court held that contacting and hiring an intermediary to arrange a killing can satisfy the overt-act element of conspiracy, completing the offense, and that a later repudiation cannot defeat liability for the already completed conspiracy even if it would preclude liability for subsequent substantive crimes.


People v. Sconce, 228 Cal. App. 3d 693 (Ct. App. 1991)