State v. Pond

Summary

Justice Espinosa dissented from the conclusion that conspiracy liability requires proof that the defendant specifically intended every element of the completed offense, including elements lacking their own specific-intent requirement. She would have held that the conspiracy statute requires only intent that criminal conduct be performed and would have upheld the defendant's conviction. The dissent also argued that the majority's interpretation creates an irrational anomaly by imposing a greater mens rea requirement on conspiracy than on the completed crime.