In criminal law, an overt act is the one that can be clearly proved by evidence and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime.[1] Such an act, even if innocent per se, can potentially be used as evidence against someone during a trial to show participation in a crime.[2] For instance, the purchase of a ski mask, which can conceal identity, is generally a legal act but may be an overt act if it is purchased in the planning of a bank robbery.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:5 2065534 041
-
California's Criminal Conspiracy Laws: Penal Code 182 PC
-
bullying,gay bashing,teen suicides,missed withold phenomenon
-
Lewd Acts w/a Child | Legal Analysis of CA Penal Code 288 a PC
Transcription
Content
The term is more particularly employed in cases of treason, which must be demonstrated by some overt or open act in some jurisdictions.[1][3] This rule was enacted in the law of England (see the Treason Act 1547), and was later adopted by the United States in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which provides that "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."[4] In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[5] In Haupt v. United States (330 U.S. 631), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required either to prove intent or to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to that decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred.[6]
In some jurisdictions, a defendant cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy unless an overt act is proved.[3]
References
- ^ a b One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Overt Act". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 384.
- ^ Hill, Gerald N. (2002). The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 9781567315530.
- ^ a b Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 7 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 340. ISBN 9780787663742.
- ^ Storey, J. (1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, §1796
- ^ via . . April 23, 1945 – via Wikisource.
- ^ "The Haupt Case at Cornell Law School website
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This page was last edited on 31 December 2022, at 08:50