Is there insufficient evidence to convict defendants of conspiracy to commit extortion?

Second, defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence that either of them personally threatened inmates to hand over their drugs or commissary items (as part of a "shakedown") or threatened inmates who did not have their relatives reimburse the kitty (as part of "loan sharking"); absent threats to identified victims, they argue, the jury was impermissibly convicting them for merely being gang members. This argument lacks merit for several reasons. To begin, defendants stand convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion. Because conspiracy criminalizes the agreement to commit a crime, it "'does not require the commission of the substantive offense that is the object of the conspiracy.'" (People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 416-417, italics added.) Thus, the absence of evidence of specific threats against specific inmates is of no consequence. The absence of evidence of defendants' personal involvement in making threats is also of no consequence. That is because "'[i]t is not necessary that a party to a conspiracy shall be present and personally participate with his coconspirators in all or any of the overt acts'"; instead, "'"'[e]ach [conspirator] is responsible for everything done by his confederates, which follows incidentally in the execution of the common design . . . .'"' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 417.) Defendants respond that they cannot be convicted of conspiracy on the basis of the acts of coconspirators committed before defendants joined the conspiracy. This is true (People v. Hardeman (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 1, 51; People v. Weiss (1958) 50 Cal.2d 535, 563566), but (again) of no consequence because defendants' liability in this case rests upon their act in agreeing to join an ongoing

Page 9