Conspiracy. Section 2105 Revised Statutes, Oklahoma, 1910, provides: "All persons who, after the commission of any felony, conceal or aid the offender, with knowledge that he has committed a felony, and with intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment, are accessories." Section 37, Volume 5, R. C. L. page 1088, reads as follows: "It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together, and actually agreed in terms to have the unlawful purpose, and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part and another another part of the same so as to complete it, with a view to the attaining of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that object." Franklin Union vs People, (Ills.), 4 L.R.A.N.S. 1001. State vs Ryan (Ore.), 82 Pac. 703, 1 L.R.A.N.S. 862. CONSPIRACY--what CONSTITUTES- "A conspiracy may be defined generally as a combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means." Wishard vs State, 5 Okla. Crim. page 610. CONSPIRACY-CIVIL LIABILITY-PROOF-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. "It is not necessary, in an action in a case in the nature of a conspiracy, to prove by direct evidence that the parties actually came together and entered into a formal agreement to do the things complained of; but such an understanding may be shown by proof of facts and circumstances from which the existence of a conspiracy may be inferred, and in the admission of circumstantial evidence upon a charge of conspiracy, great latitude is allowed. The limit to which evidence of this kind may be admitted rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Democrat Printing Co. et al. vs Johnson, (Okla.) 175 Pac. 737.
Conspiracy Notes, Attorney General Civil Case No. 1062, Box 25, Record Group 1-2, State of Oklahoma vs. John A. Gustafson, Chief of Police Tulsa (Tulsa Race Riot Investigation Vice Condition); Civil Case No. 1062, Attorney General, Oklahoma State Archives Division, Oklahoma Department of Libraries, Oklahoma City, OK
Conspiracy. Section 2105 Revised Statutes, Oklahoma, 1910, provides: "All persons who, after the commission of any felony, conceal or aid the offender, with knowledge that he has committed a felony, and with intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment, are accessories." Section 37, Volume 5, R. C. L. page 1088, reads as follows: "It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together, and actually agreed in terms to have the unlawful purpose, and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part and another another part of the same so as to complete it, with a view to the attaining of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that object." Franklin Union vs People, (Ills.), 4 L.R.A.N.S. 1001. State vs Ryan (Ore.), 82 Pac. 703, 1 L.R.A.N.S. 862. CONSPIRACY--what CONSTITUTES- "A conspiracy may be defined generally as a combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means." Wishard vs State, 5 Okla. Crim. page 610. CONSPIRACY-CIVIL LIABILITY-PROOF-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. "It is not necessary, in an action in a case in the nature of a conspiracy, to prove by direct evidence that the parties actually came together and entered into a formal agreement to do the things complained of; but such an understanding may be shown by proof of facts and circumstances from which the existence of a conspiracy may be inferred, and in the admission of circumstantial evidence upon a charge of conspiracy, great latitude is allowed. The limit to which evidence of this kind may be admitted rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Democrat Printing Co. et al. vs Johnson, (Okla.) 175 Pac. 737.
