Conspiracy; overt acts; allegations required; proof.
In trials for conspiracy, in cases where an overt act is required by law to consummate the offense, no conviction shall be had unless one or more overt acts be expressly alleged in the indictment, nor unless one or more of the acts so alleged be proved on trial; but other overt acts not alleged in the indictment may be given in evidence on the part of the prosecution.
Source:G.S.1873, c. 58, § 476, p. 828; R.S.1913, § 9117; C.S.1922, § 10142; C.S.1929, § 29-2014; R.S.1943, § 29-2014.
In trials for conspiracy where an overt act is required by law to consummate the offense, a specific overt act must be alleged. An allegation that a person committed an overt act is not adequate. State v. Marco, 230 Neb. 355, 432 N.W.2d 1 (1988).
Doing of overt act by one or more of the conspirators is essential to conviction on charge of conspiracy. Beyl v. State, 165 Neb. 260, 85 N.W.2d 653 (1957).
An overt act effecting the object of a conspiracy is a necessary element of conspiracy. Platt v. State, 143 Neb. 131, 8 N.W.2d 849 (1943).
Mere tacit understanding to work to common unlawful purpose is all that is essential to guilty combination. Deupree v. Thornton, 97 Neb. 812, 151 N.W. 305 (1915), reversed on rehearing, 98 Neb. 804, 154 N.W. 557 (1915).
Conspiracy cannot be established by admissions alone of coconspirator who is not a party to record. State v. Merchants Bank, 81 Neb. 704, 116 N.W. 667 (1908); O'Brien v. State, 69 Neb. 691, 96 N.W. 649 (1903).
For rules as to proof of conspiracy in civil cases see Harvey v. Harvey, 75 Neb. 557, 106 N.W. 660 (1906); Farley v. Peebles, 50 Neb. 723, 70 N.W. 231 (1897).