means conscious objective or purpose4 Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. [Add when appropriate: Evidence that a defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that the defendant personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.5] Under our law, the People must also prove that one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.6 The agreement to engage in or cause the performance of a crime is not itself an overt act. The overt act must be an independent act that tends to carry out the conspiracy. The overt act can be, but need not be, the commission of the crime that was the object of the conspiracy.7 In this case, the alleged overt act[s] is [are]: (specify). [Note: Add when and to the extent appropriate: Under our law, it is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that, owing to criminal irresponsibility or other legal incapacity or exemption, or to unawareness of the criminal nature of the agreement or the object conduct or of the defendant's criminal purpose or to other factors precluding the mental state required for the commission of conspiracy or the object crime, one or more of the defendant's co-conspirators could not be guilty of conspiracy or the object crime.8 In other words, a defendant may If necessary, an expanded definition of See Penal Law § 15.05(1). 4 is available in the section on Instructions of General Applicability “intent” under Culpable Mental States. 31 N.Y.3d 930, 931 (2018). People v. Reyes, 5 See Law § 105.20. 6 See People v. Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d 284 (1991). 7 Penal Law § 105.30. 8 2
means conscious objective or purpose4 Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. [Add when appropriate: Evidence that a defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that the defendant personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.5] Under our law, the People must also prove that one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.6 The agreement to engage in or cause the performance of a crime is not itself an overt act. The overt act must be an independent act that tends to carry out the conspiracy. The overt act can be, but need not be, the commission of the crime that was the object of the conspiracy.7 In this case, the alleged overt act[s] is [are]: (specify). [Note: Add when and to the extent appropriate: Under our law, it is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that, owing to criminal irresponsibility or other legal incapacity or exemption, or to unawareness of the criminal nature of the agreement or the object conduct or of the defendant's criminal purpose or to other factors precluding the mental state required for the commission of conspiracy or the object crime, one or more of the defendant's co-conspirators could not be guilty of conspiracy or the object crime.8 In other words, a defendant may 4 See Penal Law § 15.05(1). If necessary, an expanded definition of “intent” is available in the section on Instructions of General Applicability under Culpable Mental States. 5 People v. Reyes, 31 N.Y.3d 930, 931 (2018). 6 See Law § 105.20. 7 See People v. Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d 284 (1991). 8 Penal Law § 105.30. 2
105-17.docx