upon the group “may be drawn from proof that the co-conspirators knew of each other’s participation or actually benefitted from the activities of his co-conspirators.” Id. In the present matter, the government argues that Nye and Jimenez, Herrera’s alleged co-conspirators, benefitted one another by selling to the same people, Herrera and Theodoratos, because each sale would increase the quantity of drugs that Herrera could sell, and he would then presumably buy larger quantities for resale. This thesis, however, is insufficient, on its own, to show th prove one conspiracy involving Herrera, Theodoratos, Jimenez and Nye. Rather, the evidence presented shows two separate conspiracies. Nonetheless, this circumstance does not require a reversal of the conviction. See id. at 1081-83 (<HOLDING>). While, as noted, Herrera claimed the evidence
recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment