State v. Pacheco
Citation: 125 Wn.2d 150 (1994)
Facts
Pacheco discussed plans to commit crimes with an undercover police officer who was feigning agreement. The question was whether Pacheco could be convicted of conspiracy when his only “co-conspirator” was an officer who had no genuine intent to enter the agreement.
Issue
Can a defendant be convicted of conspiracy when the only other “conspirator” is an undercover police officer who did not genuinely intend to commit the crime?
Holding
No. Washington’s conspiracy statute requires a genuine bilateral agreement between parties who actually intend to carry out the crime. Because the officer had no genuine criminal intent, no true agreement was formed, and Pacheco cannot be convicted of conspiracy.
Rule
Bilateral conspiracy requirement: Under traditional common-law conspiracy doctrine (and Washington’s statute), conspiracy requires a genuine agreement between two or more persons who each intend to commit the offense. Where one party is an undercover officer feigning agreement, there is no genuine bilateral agreement — conviction for conspiracy fails.
Contrast — MPC unilateral approach: Under MPC § 5.03, a person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees with another person that one of them will engage in criminal conduct, regardless of whether the other person genuinely intends to commit the crime. A unilateral approach would permit conviction in Pacheco.
Significance
- Classic case contrasting bilateral (traditional) vs. unilateral (MPC) conspiracy doctrine
- Most states have moved toward the unilateral approach for sting-operation cases
- Shows how the bilateral requirement can frustrate law enforcement in undercover operations
- The MPC unilateral approach is now the majority rule in American jurisdictions