No overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime is necessary. 14 Va. App. In the present case, the evidence is sufficient for a jury reasonably to infer from all the circumstances that defendant agreed with Dorothea to have Martin killed so that she could receive a financial windfall. The jury was entitled to reject defendant's denials that he agreed to have Martin shot and his assertion that he attempted to make the silencer for his son's use. Next, defendant contends the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's failure to strike the evidence with respect to the charge of attempted possession of a firearm silencer in violation of Code 18.2-308.6.
Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to convict.
At the threshold of this issue, however, defendant contends the statute is unconstitutionally vague and the indictment should have been dismissed for that reason. He argues the statute fails to define the prohibited conduct with sufficient clarity to provide reasonable persons with fair notice of what is prohibited. We do not agree. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony. Defendant has no standing to mount a broad, general, facial statutory challenge because he does not contend his conduct was constitutionally protected nor is the First Amendment implicated.