Also known as: overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy · overt act · conspiracy overt act
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An affirmative step taken by one of the conspirators to advance the criminal objective of their agreement. The step must go beyond mere preparation and must be performed in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Oskar Ocampo and Oakley Osei agree to sell counterfeit watches at a street fair. Under the traditional common law definition, their mutual understanding alone supplies the actus reus. The prosecution may charge conspiracy even though neither man has yet purchased supplies or contacted buyers.
Octavia Okonkwo and Odilia Okamura agree to commit misdemeanor theft by shoplifting electronics. Because the target offense is not a first- or second-degree felony, the prosecution must allege and prove that one of them performed an overt act in pursuance of the plan before either can be convicted of conspiracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Omar Olson and Oriana Oberman agree to burn a vacant warehouse for insurance proceeds. Olson buys gasoline and drives to the alley behind the building but is stopped before he exits the car. The conduct remains mere preparation and does not constitute the overt act needed to satisfy the requirement in jurisdictions that demand an overt act for conspiracy liability.
Osprey Aviation employees agree to falsify maintenance logs. One employee creates and saves an altered digital file to a hidden server directory. Once that overt act occurs, traditional common law treats withdrawal as unavailable because the line from preparation to perpetration has been crossed.
Outback Mining supervisors agree to underreport safety violations to regulators. At common law the conspiracy is complete upon formation of the agreement with criminal intent. No further overt act in furtherance is required for liability to attach.
Overland Transport drivers agree to falsify delivery logs. One driver later creates a false entry in the company system. Because the overt act has already been committed, common law prevents any later withdrawal from serving as a defense to the completed conspiracy.
Under the traditional common law definition the agreement itself constitutes the culpable act and the prosecution need not prove any additional overt act. The offense is complete once the parties reach the agreement with the requisite criminal intent.
Supporting sources
No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime other than a felony of the first or second degree unless an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by the defendant or by a person with whom the defendant conspired.
Supporting sources
At common law a defendant cannot rely on withdrawal as a defense to conspiracy once the parties have formed the unlawful agreement and any conspirator has committed an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. The offense is already complete.
Supporting sources
The act must be performed in pursuance of the conspiracy and must advance the criminal objective beyond the agreement itself. Conduct that remains preparatory and leaves substantial steps undone does not satisfy the requirement in jurisdictions that demand an overt act.
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…