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.
Content
The term is more particularly employed in cases of
treason, which must be demonstrated by some overt or open act in some jurisdictions.
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
to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
[Joseph Storey (1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, ยง1796] 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 ] 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.
[ "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.
