State v. Flemke

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed but argues that the case should not be treated as support for the recently adopted conspiracy rule requiring proof that the defendant specifically intended every element of the conspired offense. It explains that the facts presented an unusual instance in which the state introduced evidence of an express, collective agreement concerning the robbery's details, including use of an airsoft pellet gun. The concurrence therefore views the case as illustrating, rather than validating, the stringent burden imposed by that rule.