overt act
{{short description|Act from which criminal intent can be inferred}}
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.{{EB1911 |wstitle=Overt Act |volume=20 |page=384 |inline=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.{{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=Gerald N. |title=The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language |date=2002 |publisher=MJF Books |location=New York, NY |isbn=9781567315530}} 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.
Content
The term is more particularly employed in cases of treason, which must be demonstrated by some overt or open act in some jurisdictions.{{cite book |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 7 | edition=2 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=9780787663742 |page=340}} 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."Storey, J. (1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, [https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-339/ §1796] 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."via {{cite Wikisource |wslink= Cramer v. United States (325 U.S. 1) |chapter = Opinion of the Court |date=April 23, 1945}} 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.[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-3/clause-1/the-haupt-case "The Haupt Case] at Cornell Law School website
In some jurisdictions, a defendant cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy unless an overt act is proved.