Such an agreement may be proven by direct evidence-that is, by testimony of one of the conspirators about the agreement. The defendant must have had a guilty intent and knew that what they were doing was part of a general scheme to commit one or more of the unlawful acts alleged in the information. It requires more than proof of the defendant’s mere passive knowledge of a crime to sustain a charge of conspiracy. The mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of an unlawful act, without agreement, is not sufficient to make someone a party to a conspiracy. A person does not become a member of a conspiracy simply because they know that a group of persons have combined for unlawful purposes and does nothing about it. It is sufficient if the parties reached an understanding that they should work together with a single design for the attainment of a common purpose. It is enough if they knew that an agreement existed or that they were creating an agreement and that they joined with at least one other person into an agreement to commit the crime or cause it to be committed. Nor is it necessary that they agreed with all the parties to the agreement. It is not necessary that the defendant knew the complete plan of the conspiracy in all its details. It is sufficient to show that the persons involved were knowingly engaged in a mutual plan to perform a forbidden act.
It need not have been a formal agreement, or an agreement in words or in writing. The agreement may have been explicit or expressed, or it may have been implicit or unexpressed. The second element is that the defendant, acting with that criminal intent, agreed with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of that conduct which constituted a crime. It is only necessary that they intended that certain conduct, which if performed would constitute a crime, be performed or take place. It is not necessary, however, that the defendant intended to commit a crime. The first element is that the defendant had the intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed.
There was the commission of an overt act in pursuance of the agreement, by any one or more of the persons who made the agreement. The defendant made an agreement with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of that conduct.
The defendant had an intent that criminal conduct be performed. There are three elements in the crime of conspiracy that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: Conspiracy – Elements Section 53a-48(a) of our statutes provides as follows: “A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, they agree with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy.”
0 kommentar(er)
