## Facts

- Joseph James Regle participated in planning an armed robbery of O’Donnell’s restaurant in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
- An informant, Michael Isele, reported the plan to police; Sergeant Frank Mazzone acted undercover and was introduced to Regle as a prospective participant.
- Regle invited Mazzone to join and stated that Richard Fields had helped plan the robbery and would participate.
- Regle, Fields, Isele, and Mazzone discussed the need for guns and spoke of killing two restaurant employees.
- The group traveled to Regle’s home, where Regle telephoned Kent Chamblee to buy a shotgun.
- They went to Chamblee’s home, purchased and test-fired the shotgun in his presence; Chamblee knew the gun was for a “job” but did not go to the restaurant.
- The group drove to the restaurant to carry out the plan; Mazzone and Isele entered to “case” it while Regle and Fields waited nearby.
- Mazzone summoned assistance, then revealed his identity and arrested Regle and Fields at gunpoint; he also arrested Isele to protect his status.
- After arrest, Regle made an incriminating statement admitting that he and Fields planned the robbery and that he invited Isele to participate.
- Regle was tried and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit robbery; Fields had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the charge against Chamblee was later nolle prossed as part of separate disposition.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of conspiracy when an alleged confederate was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the other apparent participants were a police informant and an undercover officer.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding of an unlawful agreement between the defendant and at least one person capable of forming criminal intent, notwithstanding different procedural outcomes for other participants.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that a conspiracy conviction may stand if the evidence shows an agreement between the defendant and at least one culpable person, even if other participants were informers or undercover officers.
- The court rejected the claim that Fields’s insanity disposition or the presence of police agents defeated the plurality element where the evidence supported an agreement involving Regle and at least one true conspirator.
- The court concluded the evidence, including Regle’s admissions and the circumstances of obtaining the shotgun from Chamblee, was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of conspiracy.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy requires proof of an unlawful agreement between at least two persons capable of forming the requisite criminal intent.
- An informant or undercover officer acting to detect crime is not a conspirator, but their participation does not negate a conspiracy proved among other culpable participants.
- A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy even if an alleged confederate is not tried, is acquitted, is found not guilty by reason of insanity, or receives a separate disposition, so long as the State proves the defendant agreed with at least one culpable person.
- A jury may infer conspiratorial participation from conduct showing knowing assistance to the criminal plan (including a weapon transaction performed with awareness it is for criminal use).

## Conclusion

The court upheld Regle’s conspiracy conviction because the evidence supported a finding that he agreed with at least one person capable of criminal intent to commit robbery, and the involvement of a police informant and undercover officer, as well as a confederate’s insanity disposition and another participant’s separate case resolution, did not defeat the conspiracy proved at trial.


Regle v. State, 264 A.2d 119 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970)