What is the language of the act that says that? What is the definition of aid and support?
From the link in your previous post.
EIOCA BY
“CONSPIRING TO COMMIT”
Texas Penal Code §71.01(b) states that “conspiring to commit” means that defendant agrees with at least one person that defendant or at least one other engage in conduct that would constitute the offense and defendant and one or more of them perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
State must prove:
Existence of a combination;
AND
Defendant agreed with at least one of the other persons that
Defendant or at least one of the others would engage in conduct that would constitute the underlying offense,
AND
The defendant, and
at least one of the others performed an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
The state must prove two overt acts. One of these acts must have been committed by the defendant.
Penal Code § 71.01(b) states that an agreement constituting conspiring to commit may be inferred from the acts of the parties.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
CONSPIRACY AND EIOCA
For conspiracy, defendant must simply Agree To Participate in conspiracy, as long as another conspirator commits some overt act in furtherance of conspiracy.
For conspiracy, defendant must simply Agree To Participate in conspiracy, as long as another conspirator commits some overt act in furtherance of conspiracy.
For EIOCA, [as opposed to conspiracy to engage in . . .] Defendant must
Agree to participate
and
Himself perform some overt act in pursuance of that agreement.
Thus, if the group is charged with conspiring to commit EIOCA and are jointly tried, the defendants who did not personally perform an overt act will be acquitted.
*****The overt act need not be criminal itself.****** The law of parties applies to EIOCA (i.e. acts that encourage, solicit, aid, or attempt to aid the commission of the underlying offense, are sufficient to satisfy the requisite overt act.
now just me:
As to the definition of “encourage, solicit, aid, or attempt to aid” . . . The original intent of the legislature that enacted this law comes into play; maybe more so, case law applying the statute to individual cases.
Interesting that the overt act in itself need not be a criminal act.
I thought about getting a law degree, but the prospect of continued life on “campi” in the early 70s disgusted me so I decided to join the RW (Real World). In my case, in the Army. Anything above notwithstanding has to be put to an actual attorney who has experience in the litigation of these types of cases — or dare I suggest, you or I read the case law ourselves. I do not doubt either of us would be up to the task, but surely there is someone who already knows??