Regle v. State

264 A.2d 119 (1970)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sergeant Mazzone, a Maryland State Police officer was working under cover. He was invited by D to participate in a robbery. Mazzone contacted Isele, whom he previously knew, and together they went to see the D. Isele introduced Mazzone to D as a prospective participant. D and Mazzone agreed to do the robbery. D indicated to Mazzone that Richard Fields had been involved with him in planning and would also participate in the crime. Mazzone, D, and Isele then met with Fields, and the robbery plan was outlined by D and Fields. The need for guns was discussed and D and Fields spoke of the necessity of killing two employees at O'Donnell's restaurant. The four drove to D's home where D phoned Kent Chamblee for the purpose of purchasing a shotgun. The men drove to Chamblee's home, purchased the gun from him, and tested it in his presence. Chamblee knew that the shotgun was to be used 'for a job,' he did not accompany the others when they then drove to the restaurant to perpetrate the robbery. The four drove to D's home where D phoned Kent Chamblee for the purpose of purchasing a shotgun. The men drove to Chamblee's home, purchased the gun from him, and tested it in his presence. Chamblee knew that the shotgun was to be used 'for a job,' he did not accompany the others when they then drove to the restaurant to perpetrate the robbery. Upon arriving, Mazzone told D that he first wanted to 'case' the restaurant. Mazzone and Isele went into the restaurant while D and Fields went to a nearby bar to await their return. Mazzone contacted police headquarters and requested assistance. He and Isele left and rejoined D and Fields. Several police cars arrived. Mazzone revealed his identity as a police officer and arrested D and Fields at gunpoint. Hee also arrested Isele in order 'to cover him.' D made an incriminating statement to the effect that he and Fields had planned the robbery and that he had invited Isele to participate in the crime. D, Fields, and Chamblee were jointly indicted for conspiracy. D was found guilty and appealed. The conspiracy indictment against Chamblee was nol prossed. D had also established through the testimony of a police officer that Fields had been examined by State psychiatrists and found 'not guilty by reason of being insane at the time of the alleged crime.' P did not rebut the officer's testimony, although the record indicates that two of the State psychiatrists who had examined Fields were then present in court. On appeal, D claims that it is impossible to convict a single person for a conspiracy.