Also known as: overt acts in furtherance · overt act · act in furtherance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An act performed by a party to a criminal agreement or attempt to advance the unlawful objective. The act supplies the required actus reus element in jurisdictions that impose an overt-act requirement and marks the point at which withdrawal ceases to be a defense to attempt.
Otis Olsen and Olga O'Neill agree to falsify insurance claims but take no further steps. Under the traditional common law rule the agreement itself supplies the actus reus, so the prosecution need not prove any additional overt act to obtain convictions.
Odette Orozco and Odin Obeng agree to commit a third-degree felony by altering corporate records. The state must allege and prove that Odette created a false entry or that Odin performed another act in pursuance of the agreement before either can be convicted.
Oakley Osei buys gasoline and drives to the rear of a vacant building intending to commit arson. Police stop him before he exits the car or approaches the structure. The conduct remains mere preparation and does not constitute the dangerously close overt act required for attempt liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orion Orlov mixes a restricted pesticide into grain and carries the bucket toward cattle pens before dumping it in a waste pit. Because the carrying step crossed the line from preparation to an overt act, his later change of heart supplies no defense to attempt.
Olga O'Neill and Otis Olsen reach an agreement to divert client funds and shake hands on the plan. At common law the conspiracy is complete upon formation of the agreement with criminal intent. No overt act in furtherance is required.
Odin Obeng and Odette Orozco agree to submit false insurance claims and one conspirator later creates an altered report file. Because the offense is complete once the agreement is formed and any required overt act occurs, a subsequent attempt to withdraw provides no defense.
No. Under the traditional common law definition the agreement itself constitutes the culpable act and the prosecution need not prove any additional overt act.
Supporting sources
For any crime other than a felony of the first or second degree the prosecution must allege and prove that the defendant or a co-conspirator committed an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Supporting sources
No. Once the defendant has crossed the line from mere preparation to the commission of an overt act constituting an attempt, abandonment or withdrawal supplies no defense under the majority common law rule.
Supporting sources
No. The offense is complete once the parties form the unlawful agreement and, in jurisdictions that require it, once any conspirator commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
Supporting sources
The defendant's conduct must come dangerously close to the successful completion of the substantive offense. Acts that leave substantial steps undone remain insufficient.
Supporting sources
…this charge and refusal to charge the question is raised, whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law…