People v. Lauria

Facts

Police investigating call-girl activity focused on three prostitutes who each used Louis Lauria's telephone answering service. On January 8, 1965, Stella Weeks, a policewoman, signed up for the service. She hinted broadly to the office manager that she was a prostitute concerned with concealing her activities from the police. She was assured that the service was discreet, and it was arranged that she could pick up her calls and pay her bills in person without leaving an address. On February 11, Weeks told Lauria by telephone that she was a model referred by Terry, one of the three prostitutes, and complained she had lost two valuable customers, which she called tricks. Lauria defended his service and said his business was taking messages. He did not respond to her hints that she needed customers, other than to invite her to his house to get better acquainted. On February 15, Weeks complained to the office manager about two lost calls, a $50 and a $100 trick; the manager said she would alert the switchboard operators. On April 1, police arrested Lauria and the three prostitutes. Lauria told police his service had only 9 or 10 prostitutes, while another board had 60 to 70, and that as long as they paid their bills he tolerated them. Before the grand jury, Lauria admitted he knew some customers were prostitutes, knew Terry was one because he had personally used her services, and knew she paid for 500 calls a month.

Issues

1. Does a supplier of lawful goods or services participate in a criminal conspiracy by continuing to furnish them with knowledge that the buyer uses them for illegal purposes?
2. Can an intent to further a criminal conspiracy be inferred against a supplier from knowledge alone when the supplier has no special interest in the enterprise and the underlying offense is a misdemeanor?

Holding

Although Lauria knew prostitutes used his answering service, there was no proof of direct action to further their activities and no circumstance showing a special interest in them. Because the offense was a misdemeanor, his knowledge alone did not show intent to participate. With no conspiracy proved, the charges against Lauria and his codefendants failed, and the indictment was properly set aside.