## Facts

- Shireen D. Tyma was charged in Hall County, Nebraska, with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder; the alleged target was her estranged husband.
- Before trial, a county court issued three warrants based on an officer’s affidavits: (1) to search Tyma’s residence and related vehicles, (2) to search her parents’ residence, and (3) to obtain Tyma’s handwriting sample by court order.
- The search of Tyma’s residence yielded personal items (including notes and undeveloped film); the court later suppressed the evidence seized there for lack of probable cause.
- The search of Tyma’s parents’ home yielded a .38-caliber revolver; the trial court refused to suppress it because Tyma failed to show a legitimate expectation of privacy in that home.
- The court suppressed the handwriting sample because statutory prerequisites for compelled nontestimonial identification evidence were not met.
- Evidence at trial showed Tyma asked Kenneth Moore to kill her husband, provided written notes, and suggested methods.
- Evidence also showed Tyma later asked Leo Purvis to kill her husband and paid him small amounts of money in connection with that request.
- Moore and Purvis told Tyma they would kill her husband but testified at trial they never intended to do so and only pretended to agree.
- After a bench trial, Tyma was convicted and sentenced to 8 to 15 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Tyma had a legitimate expectation of privacy in her parents’ residence sufficient to challenge the search and suppress the revolver seized there.
2. Whether Nebraska conspiracy law permits conviction when the purported coconspirator secretly lacks intent to commit the planned crime (unilateral vs. bilateral conspiracy).
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under the proper interpretation of the conspiracy statute.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held Tyma lacked standing to challenge the search of her parents’ home because she did not establish a legitimate expectation of privacy there; the revolver was not suppressed.
- The court interpreted Nebraska’s conspiracy statute to adopt a unilateral theory of conspiracy; the defendant’s culpable intent and belief in an agreement can suffice even if the other party feigns assent.
- Applying that rule, the court held the evidence was sufficient because Tyma’s requests, written communications, discussions of methods, and payments supported a finding that she intentionally agreed to have her husband killed.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may contest a search only by showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched; absent such an interest, the defendant lacks standing to seek suppression.
- Nebraska’s conspiracy statute recognizes unilateral conspiracy: the State need not prove the other party actually intended to commit the offense if the defendant, with criminal intent, believed an agreement existed.
- For sufficiency of the evidence in a conspiracy case under a unilateral theory, the focus is on the defendant’s intent and conduct showing an agreement as the defendant understood it, not the secret intentions of the other participant.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tyma’s conspiracy conviction, ruling that she could not suppress evidence seized from her parents’ home without proving a privacy interest there and that Nebraska conspiracy liability does not require a genuine shared intent by the alleged coconspirator when the defendant believed and acted as though an agreement to commit murder existed.


State v. Tyma, 651 N.W.2d 582 (Neb. 2002)