Legal Opinion

State v. Mickolyzck

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided June 1, 1978No. File 22539PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSaden, J.

The second count of this information alleges that the defendant and one Riccardi conspired to commit the crime of robbery. No overt act is alleged and no reference to an overt act appears in the information.

The conspiracy statute, General Statutes § 53a-48, requires an agreement with one or more persons to commit a crime and “an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy” by any one of them. The two essentials of the crime of conspiracy, therefore, are the agreement and an overt act by any one of the alleged conspirators.

Whether it is necessary to allege an overt act in the information has…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. DevineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
  2. State v. BradleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
  3. State v. McGeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. BoykinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API