## Facts

- Joseph Marian discussed killing his wife with John Protain and believed Protain agreed to participate.
- Marian provided Protain a gun and $500 to further the plan.
- Protain did not intend to commit the murder; he only pretended to participate and notified authorities.
- Marian was indicted for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.01(A)(1), which requires proof of a substantial overt act under § 2923.01(B).
- The trial court dismissed the indictment on the ground that conspiracy requires a genuine agreement between at least two culpable parties.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding conspiracy liability may exist even if the supposed partner lacks intent.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.01 permits a conspiracy conviction when the purported co-conspirator feigns agreement and lacks intent to commit the target offense (unilateral vs. bilateral conspiracy).
2. Whether providing a gun and money constitutes a “substantial overt act” sufficient to support a conspiracy charge under § 2923.01(B).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals and reinstated the charge.
- The court held that § 2923.01 embodies a unilateral theory of conspiracy: the defendant’s culpable purpose and conduct can establish conspiracy even if the other person only pretends to agree.
- The court held Marian’s provision of a gun and $500 was a substantial overt act in furtherance of the planned killing.
- The indictment stated an offense despite the alleged co-conspirator’s lack of criminal intent.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.01(A)(1), conspiracy focuses on the defendant’s purpose to commit, promote, or facilitate specified offenses and his planning (or aiding in planning) “with another person,” without requiring proof that the other person actually shared the criminal intent.
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.01(B) requires an alleged and proved substantial overt act, committed after entry into the conspiracy, that manifests a purpose that the object offense be completed.
- The overt-act requirement limits conspiracy liability to cases involving more than intent or discussion; the defendant must take a concrete step furthering the planned offense.

## Conclusion

Ohio law allows conspiracy liability where a defendant, acting with the required purpose, believes he is planning a listed offense with another person and commits a substantial overt act, even if the supposed partner is an informant or otherwise feigns agreement and never intended to commit the crime.


State v. Marian, 62 Ohio St. 2d 250 (Ohio 1980)