Also known as: overt acts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An outward act, however innocent in itself, done in furtherance of a conspiracy, attempt, or treason. The act demonstrates that the criminal design has moved beyond mere mental formulation into implementation.
Orion and Olivia agree to burn a rival's warehouse. They shake hands on the plan but take no further steps. Under the traditional common law definition the agreement itself completes the crime, so the prosecution need not prove any additional overt act.
Oskar and Oriana agree to commit a third-degree felony by falsifying records. Oskar later rents a storage unit to hold the altered documents. Because the statute requires an overt act for any crime other than a first- or second-degree felony, the rental satisfies the element and supports conviction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Otis buys gasoline and rags, drives to the alley behind the target building, and parks. Police stop him before he exits the car or approaches the structure. The preparatory conduct never reaches the point of an overt act dangerously close to setting the fire, so attempt liability does not attach.
Oakley mixes poison into grain and carries the bucket toward the cattle pen. She then dumps the mixture and walks away. Once the carrying step crossed the line from preparation into an overt act, traditional common law treats withdrawal as no defense to attempt.
Olympia Steel's two managers agree to submit false bids. They form the agreement with criminal intent but perform no further steps. At common law the conspiracy is complete upon the agreement itself. The doctrine imposes no requirement of an overt act in furtherance.
Omega Energy's executives agree to rig bids and one of them rents a meeting room to plan the scheme. After the overt act, one executive tries to withdraw. The offense is already complete once the agreement formed and the overt act occurred, so withdrawal supplies no defense.
No. At common law the agreement itself supplies the actus reus, so no overt act need be shown. Many modern statutes, including the Model Penal Code for lesser felonies, add an overt-act requirement that any conspirator may satisfy.
Supporting sources
Yes. The overt act need not be criminal in itself. Any outward step in furtherance of the conspiracy or attempt suffices, such as renting a car or saving a file to a server.
Supporting sources
Once an overt act has been committed, traditional common law treats withdrawal as no defense to either attempt or conspiracy. The crime is already complete at that point.
Supporting sources
Under the traditional proximity test the overt act must come dangerously close to successful completion, leaving only interruption to prevent the crime. Mere travel to the area or other preparatory steps fall short.
Supporting sources
…Freedom, wrote in that document that civil government could interfere in religious exercise only "when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." In 1808, he indicated that he considered " the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious…