Supreme Court of the United States · 1948 · Criminal Law
335 U.S. 811 (1948)
Updated
Criminal Lawconspiracyhearsayco-conspirator statementstermination of conspiracyin furtherance requirementreversible errorprejudicial error
Facts
The only facts presented in the majority text are procedural and evidentiary. At trial, the court admitted, over objection, important alleged declarations of a co-conspirator. Those declarations were admitted even though they were made after the termination of the alleged conspiracy and were not in furtherance of it. The evidentiary ruling was challenged as prejudicial and reversible error.
Issue
Whether it was prejudicial and reversible error for the trial court to admit, over objection, important alleged declarations of a co-conspirator when the statements were made after the alleged conspiracy had terminated and were not made in furtherance of that conspiracy.
Rule
Declarations of a co-conspirator are not admissible under the co-conspirator theory when they are made after the alleged conspiracy has terminated and are not in furtherance of the conspiracy; admitting such important declarations over objection is prejudicial and reversible error.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Nolan Price and Tessa Velez were charged with conspiring to transport stolen jewelry for resale. Two weeks after the jewelry had been delivered and the venture was complete, Tessa told her cousin, "Nolan arranged everything from the start." At Nolan's trial, the prosecution offers Tessa's statement against Nolan over objection as a co-conspirator declaration.
Should the statement be admitted on the co-conspirator theory?
Explanation. The co-conspirator theory applies only to declarations made during the life of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it. Here, the statement came after the venture was complete and merely described past events, so it falls outside that basis for admission. Admitting such an important statement over objection is error. (Derived from Krulewitch v. United States (1948).)