Criminal: Multiple conspiracy convictions are affirmed

Where a man did not challenge the evidence establishing a conspiracy, and only questioned the number of people involved in the murder and burglary, his conspiracy convictions were affirmed. This court’s caselaw does not require that every single member to a conspiracy partake in carrying out the agreed-upon unlawful acts.

Background

Following a six-day trial, a jury convicted Rashad Detwan Dooley of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit burglary and attempted robbery.

Analysis

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to strike because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. He exclusively challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing his involvement in the shooting of Cummings and the burglary of Cummings’s residence, claiming that “the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude” that either crime “involved more than one person.”

By alleging that no reliable evidence placed him at the scene of these crimes, appellant concludes that the record contains insufficient evidence of his involvement in a conspiracy to commit either burglary or murder. The commission of a crime, however, is not a required element for a charge of conspiracy to commit such crime.

By questioning only the number of people involved in the murder and burglary, appellant does not raise a general sufficiency challenge to the evidence establishing a conspiracy. This court’s caselaw does not require that every single member to a conspiracy partake in carrying out the agreed-upon unlawful acts. In fact, because “[n]o overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime is necessary” to prove a conspiracy, the underlying crime need never be completed at all to convict all parties to the agreement of conspiracy.

Consequently, this limited issue that appellant raises does not present a legal ground for this court to conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motions to strike and sending the case to the jury. Furthermore, even if this court could consider appellant’s argument at face value, the record does present evidence of the involvement of more than one person in the murder and burglary. To the extent appellant’s brief fleetingly mentions other ways in which the evidence was insufficient, such arguments are beyond the scope of appellant’s narrow assignments of error and therefore precluded from consideration under Rule 5A:20(c)(i).

Affirmed.

Dooley v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0450-23-1, July 23, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Huff). From the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Atkins). G. Anthony Yancey for appellant. Victoria Johnson, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-228. 15 pp.