Incriminal law, anovert act is a criminal act that can be clearly proved byevidence and from whichcriminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit acrime.[1] Such an act, even if innocentper se, can potentially be used as evidence against someone during atrial to show participation in a crime.[2] For instance, the purchase of aski mask, which can conceal identity, is generally a legal act but may be an overt act if it is purchased in the planning of abank robbery.
The term is more particularly employed in cases oftreason, 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 theTreason Act 1547), and was later adopted by theUnited States inArticle III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which provides that "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on theTestimony of twoWitnesses to the same overt Act, or onConfessionin open Court."[4] InCramer v. United States, theSupreme 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] InHaupt 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, adefendant cannot be convicted ofcriminal conspiracy unless an overt act is proved.[3]
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Overt Act".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 384.