## Facts

- Stanley Thomas Williams was indicted and tried for conspiracy to commit aggravated kidnapping under Texas Penal Code § 15.02, with the indictment naming only Steve Jennings as the co-conspirator.
- Dallas police used Jennings as a confidential informant and directed him to cultivate a friendship with Williams and report suspicious activity.
- Williams approached Jennings about making money and later discussed kidnapping, proposing a $100,000 ransom and a division of proceeds.
- Williams and Jennings discussed details of the planned kidnapping, including the intended target (the son of Williams’s former employer) and logistical aspects of executing the offense.
- Two days before the planned kidnapping, Jennings reported the plan to police; police recorded conversations between Jennings and Williams about the kidnapping.
- Williams was arrested and prosecuted based on an apparent agreement with Jennings and alleged overt acts in furtherance of the plan.
- At trial, Jennings testified he never intended to participate in the kidnapping and only pretended to agree to gather information for law enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence is legally sufficient to prove conspiracy when the indictment alleges only two conspirators and the purported co-conspirator was a police informant who feigned agreement and lacked intent to commit the offense.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction based on legal insufficiency.
- The court held the State failed to prove the statutory element of an actual agreement between Williams and another person as charged.
- The court reformed the judgment to reflect an acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal conspiracy under Texas Penal Code § 15.02 requires proof that the defendant, intending a felony, agreed with one or more persons that one or more would engage in conduct constituting the offense, and that an overt act occurred in pursuance of the agreement.
- The “agreement” element requires mutual assent—more than unilateral intent—between at least two persons.
- When an indictment alleges a conspiracy solely between the defendant and one named person, the State’s proof must establish an actual agreement with that person; proof cannot rest on an apparent agreement with someone who is merely pretending to assent.
- If the only alleged co-conspirator is a government agent or informant who lacks genuine intent and feigns participation, the evidence is insufficient to establish the agreement required for conspiracy as charged.
- A finding of legal insufficiency requires reversal and entry of an acquittal rather than a remand for new trial.

## Conclusion

Because the indictment named only Jennings as the co-conspirator and the undisputed evidence showed Jennings was an informant who feigned assent and never intended to commit the kidnapping, the State failed to prove an essential element of conspiracy—an actual agreement—so the conviction was reversed and an acquittal was ordered.


Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)