Opinion ID: 728065
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirements for Indictments in Conspiracy Cases

Text: 14 This court reviews de novo the sufficiency of a charge in an indictment. United States v. Wood, 958 F.2d 963, 974 (10th Cir.1992), amended on denial of reh'g, Nos. 90-2184, 91-2007, 91-2008, 1992 WL 58305 (10th Cir. March 19, 1992). An indictment must, first, contain[ ] the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enable[ ] him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); see also Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046-47, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Kilpatrick, 821 F.2d 1456, 1461 (10th Cir.1987), cert. granted in part, 484 U.S. 1003, 108 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988), and aff'd, 487 U.S. 250, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988); United States v. Radetsky, 535 F.2d 556, 562 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 820, 97 S.Ct. 68, 50 L.Ed.2d 81 (1976). [T]he indictment should be read as a whole and interpreted in a common-sense manner.... Courts ... do not insist that any particular word or phrase be used in stating an essential element. Kilpatrick, 821 F.2d at 1462, 1463. 15 In light of these requirements, analysis of the sufficiency of an indictment typically begins with consideration of the elements of the offense charged. Reviewing the elements of a § 371 conspiracy, several of our prior cases have concluded that it is necessary to allege and prove an overt act, see Hudspeth v. McDonald, 120 F.2d 962, 965 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 617, 62 S.Ct. 110, 86 L.Ed. 496 (1941); see also Laska v. United States, 82 F.2d 672, 674 (10th Cir.) ([A]n overt act by some member [of the conspiracy] must be alleged and proven....), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 689, 56 S.Ct. 957, 80 L.Ed. 1407 (1936). This circuit has not yet addressed the issue of whether the overt act proved at trial must be the same overt act alleged in the indictment See Hauck, 980 F.2d at 613 (leaving this question open). 16 However, a number of other circuits have upheld conspiracy convictions in instances in which the government proves a different overt act than the act alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Armone, 363 F.2d 385, 400 (2d Cir.) (prosecution under the conspiracy provision of federal narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 957, 87 S.Ct. 391, 392, 398, 17 L.Ed.2d 303 (1966); United States v. Negro, 164 F.2d 168, 173 (2d Cir.1947) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 88); United States v. Schurr, 794 F.2d 903, 907 n. 4 (3d Cir.1986) (prosecution for conspiracy to violate 29 U.S.C. § 186); United States v. DiPasquale, 740 F.2d 1282, 1294 (3d Cir.1984) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1228, 105 S.Ct. 1226, 1227, 84 L.Ed.2d 364 (1985); United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 39 (3d Cir.) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 371), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 841, 97 S.Ct. 116, 50 L.Ed.2d 110 (1976); Strauss v. United States, 311 F.2d 926, 932 (5th Cir.) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 371), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 910, 83 S.Ct. 1299, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963); United States v. Harris, 542 F.2d 1283, 1300 (7th Cir.1976) (conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977); United States v. Clay, 495 F.2d 700, 706 (7th Cir.) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 371), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 207, 42 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974); Brulay v. United States, 383 F.2d 345, 350 (9th Cir.) (conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 371), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 986, 88 S.Ct. 469, 19 L.Ed.2d 478 (1967). These decisions reason that the change in overt acts from indictment to trial constitutes a simple variance. See generally Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 105, 99 S.Ct. 2190, 2193, 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979) (defining a variance as aris[ing] when the evidence adduced at trial establishes facts different from those alleged in an indictment), quoted in United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 432 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2497, 135 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996); United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1512-13 (10th Cir.) (discussing simple variances), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 218, 133 L.Ed.2d 149 (1995). According to these decisions, such a simple variance does not warrant the reversal of a conviction so long as the variance d[id] not affect [the defendant's] substantial rights, Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); see Schurr, 794 F.2d at 907 n. 4; Harris, 542 F.2d at 1300; Adamo, 534 F.2d at 39; Clay, 495 F.2d at 706; Brulay, 383 F.2d at 351; Armone, 363 F.2d at 400; Strauss, 311 F.2d at 932; Negro, 164 F.2d at 173. 17 Although these cases are instructive, none of them involves the statute of limitations concerns raised by a variance between an untimely overt act alleged in the indictment and a timely overt act proved at trial. However, the Fifth Circuit, which in Strauss, 311 F.2d at 932 had employed the usual harmless error analysis in considering a variance in overt acts, adopted a different approach when an untimely overt act was alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Davis, 533 F.2d 921, 929 (5th Cir.1976). In Davis, the defendants argued that the district court had erred in denying their motions for dismissal of the indictment and for judgments of acquittal because the indictment failed to allege an offense within the five year general statute of limitations. Id. at 923. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the indictment did not allege a timely overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, id. at 927, and that the government could not satisfy the statute of limitations by proving a timely overt act at trial that was not alleged in the indictment, id. at 929 (holding that for purposes of the statute of limitations the overt acts alleged in the indictment and proved at trial mark the duration of the conspiracy ); see also United States v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1173 (5th Cir.1984) (recognizing as a requirement that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the prescribed time frame ... be alleged). The Davis court distinguished a Second Circuit case, United States v. Armone, 363 F.2d 385 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 957, 87 S.Ct. 391, 392, 398, 17 L.Ed.2d 303 (1966), which held that the substitution of proof of an unalleged for an alleged overt act does not constitute a fatal variance, id. at 400, based in part on the fact that Armone did not deal with a statute of limitation question. Thus, under Davis, an indictment that does not allege the commission of an overt act within the statute of limitations is subject to dismissal on its face. 18 Upon considering the numerous decisions applying the harmless error approach to simple variances between the indictment and the evidence at trial, we conclude that the absolute approach taken in Davis is appropriate only as to indictments that do not allege that the conduct constituting the conspiracy occurred within the statute of limitations period. Prosecutions on the basis of such indictments infringe a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be convicted on facts found by a grand jury, see U.S. Const. amend. V; Russell, 369 U.S. at 760, 82 S.Ct. at 1045; Radetsky, 535 F.2d at 562. In particular, the absence of an allegation that the conduct constituting the conspiracy fell within the limitations period creates a risk that the petit jury could convict the defendant of acts not charged by, or even presented to, the grand jury, see Russell, 369 U.S. at 770, 82 S.Ct. at 1050. The Fifth Amendment does not allow the government to prosecute a charge of conspiracy based on conduct that falls within the statute of limitations pursuant to an indictment that charges only conduct that is barred by the statute of limitations. 19 Similarly, an indictment lacking any allegation that the conspiracy offense was committed within the limitations period infringes a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be clearly informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against [her], see Nevius v. Sumner, 852 F.2d 463, 471 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1972, 104 L.Ed.2d 441 (1989); see also U.S. Const. amend. VI. A defendant who is confronted with untimely conspiracy allegations should not be required to guess what timely offenses the government will subsequently allege at trial. Providing adequate notice to the defendant is of particular concern in prosecutions involving the somewhat amorphous crime of conspiracy. Cf. Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 445-47, 69 S.Ct. 716, 719-20, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring) (describing conspiracy as an elastic, sprawling and pervasive offense, as being so vague that it almost defies definition, and as chameleon-like [because it] takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid); Harrison v. United States, 7 F.2d 259, 263 (2d Cir.1925) (referring to conspiracy as the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery); Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 6.4(b), at 526 (2d ed. 1986) ([I]t is clear that a conspiracy charge gives the prosecution certain unique advantages and that one who must defend against such a charge bears a particularly heavy burden.). For these reasons, an indictment must allege that the conduct constituting the conspiracy fell within the statute of limitations, and an indictment that does not contain such allegations is subject to dismissal on its face. 20 In contrast, in instances in which the indictment does contain allegations that the conduct constituting the conspiracy occurred within the statute of limitations period, we will apply the simple variance analysis adopted by several other circuits. Accordingly, in those instances, the government may prove at trial overt acts other than those alleged in the indictment, and the defendant's conviction should be upheld unless the variance between the overt acts alleged and proved affected the defendant's substantial rights. 3 We will now apply these principles to the indictment in the instant case.2. The indictment against Ms. Stoner 21
22 As noted above, because the indictment against Ms. Stoner was returned on March 16, 1994, she may not be prosecuted under § 371 for conduct occurring more than five years prior to that date. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. We must therefore review the indictment to determine whether it alleges that Ms. Stoner engaged in conduct constituting a violation of § 371 after March 16, 1989. 23 The conspiracy count in the indictment lists five overt acts that were allegedly committed before March 1, 1989 (i.e. more than five years before the filing of the indictment). However, it also asserts that overt acts other than the untimely ones listed in the conspiracy count were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Aplt's App. at 3 (In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effectuate its purpose, defendant CYNTHIA M. STONER and others, committed or caused to be committed various overt acts ... including, but not limited to, the following: .... (emphasis added)). In addition, the indictment alleges that Ms. Stoner conspired to embezzle tribal funds in or about March 1988, and continuing thereafter until in or about August 1989, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury. See id. at 2 (emphasis added). This statement, combined with the statement that unlisted overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, indicates that, according to the grand jury,  'the conspiracy [was] at work'  within the limitations period and that during that period, the conspiracy was neither a project still resting in the minds of the conspirators nor a fully completed operation no longer in existence. See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 334, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1085, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) (quoting Carlson v. United States, 187 F.2d 366, 370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 940, 71 S.Ct. 1000, 95 L.Ed. 1367 (1951), and describing the function of the overt act in a conspiracy prosecution). 4 Accordingly, the indictment is not subject to dismissal on its face. 5 24 We must now consider whether there was a variance between the overt acts alleged in the indictment and the evidence introduced at trial. If such a variance existed, we must then determine whether it prejudiced Ms. Stoner's substantial rights such that dismissal of the indictment is warranted. 25
26 the conspiracy count 27 In defending the conspiracy charge, the government maintains that no variance existed between the overt acts alleged in the indictment and those proven at trial because the conduct alleged in the embezzlement counts was implicitly incorporated into the conspiracy count. Relying primarily on United States v. Staggs, 881 F.2d 1527 (10th Cir.1989) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1020, 110 S.Ct. 719, 107 L.Ed.2d 739 (1990), the government asserts that the conduct described in the embezzlement counts sufficiently alleged overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy within the statute of limitations period. Thus, under the government's theory, the indictment's description of timely overt acts in the embezzlement counts defeats Ms. Stoner's variance claim and makes it unnecessary to undertake an inquiry into the possible prejudice suffered by her as a result of the discrepancy between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial. 28 The government's argument is not supported by the language of the indictment. Although the conduct described in the embezzlement counts is undoubtedly the same general kind of conduct as that described in the conspiracy count (the embezzlement of tribal funds), there is no express allegation in the embezzlement counts that the charged conduct was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Furthermore, the conspiracy count does not expressly incorporate the embezzlement counts by reference, as is authorized by Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). 29 Moreover, we do not agree with the government that, under Staggs, the embezzlement counts were implicitly incorporated into the conspiracy count. In Staggs, the defendant-appellants argued that the court should reverse their conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848, because the CCE charges in the indictment failed to specifically allege three felony violations comprising the series of violations required by the CCE statute. This court upheld the defendants' convictions, ruling that a CCE indictment is sufficient where, as here, the CCE counts charge appellants in the language of the statute, and the indictment additionally alleges at least three violations in another count or counts. Id. at 1531. 30 Although Staggs allowed the government to implicitly incorporate information into a CCE count from other counts of an indictment, it did not address whether the same practice is allowed in order to satisfy the charging requirements of a conspiracy count. See Staggs, 881 F.2d at 1532 ([W]e will not require explicit incorporation by reference under the facts of this case. (emphasis added)). The charge at issue in this case, conspiracy, is markedly different from the CCE charge at issue in Staggs. In particular, the element of the conspiracy charge at issue in this case, an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, is substantially broader, and therefore substantially more vague, than the continuing series of violations of the Controlled Substances Act required for the CCE charge at issue in Staggs. That is, the defendant in a CCE case knows that the government must prove three specific violations of the Controlled Substances Act to make its case, whereas, in a conspiracy case, the defendant only knows that the government must prove a furthering overt act, which has no statutory limitations. 31 Although at least two other circuits have adopted the same rule regarding a CCE charge in an indictment that this circuit adopted in Staggs, see United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 752 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 908, 109 S.Ct. 3221, 106 L.Ed.2d 571 (1989); United States v. Becton, 751 F.2d 250, 256-57 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 3480, 87 L.Ed.2d 615 (1985), we know of no cases allowing implicit incorporation for purposes of determining the adequacy of a conspiracy allegation in an indictment. To the contrary, at least one circuit has expressly held that the charging portion of a conspiracy count may not rely upon other counts within the indictment to cure deficiencies, unless those counts ... are expressly incorporated by reference. United States v. Werme, 939 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1092, 112 S.Ct. 1165, 117 L.Ed.2d 412 (1992). 32 Accordingly, we decline to apply the Staggs rule of implicit incorporation to § 371 conspiracy offenses. As a result, the sufficiency of a conspiracy charge in an indictment must be determined by examining only the conspiracy count itself and those other counts that the conspiracy count expressly incorporates. Application of this approach to the indictment in this case requires us to disregard the overt acts alleged in the embezzlement counts in assessing the sufficiency of the conspiracy charge against Ms. Stoner and therefore to conclude that there was a variance between the overt acts alleged in the indictment and the overt acts proven at trial. We must therefore undertake the prejudice inquiry that is required when such a variance exists. See, e.g., Schurr, 794 F.2d at 907 n. 4. If the variance between the untimely overt acts alleged in the indictment and the overt acts proven at trial prejudiced Ms. Stoner's substantial rights, then the district court should have dismissed the indictment, and her conviction should be overturned. 33
34 prejudiced her substantial rights 35 A variance can prejudice a defendant's substantial rights in several ways, including the following: The variance can be such that the defendant could not have anticipated from the allegations in the indictment what the evidence would be at trial, thereby prejudicing the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to notice of the charges against her. See United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671, 683 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 133 (1982); see also Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 83, 55 S.Ct. 629, 631, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935) (holding that a variance is immaterial where it  'was not of a character which could have misled the defendant at the trial'  (quoting Washington & G.R. Co. v. Hickey, 166 U.S. 521, 531, 17 S.Ct. 661, 665, 41 L.Ed. 1101 (1897))); Williamson, 53 F.3d at 1513 (holding that where a simple variance occurs, the conviction is upheld if  'the proof upon which [the conviction is] based corresponds to an offense that was clearly set out in the indictment,'  insuring that the defendant had notice of the charges against him (quoting Hunter, 916 F.2d at 599)); DiPasquale, 740 F.2d at 1294 (holding that a variance between overt acts is impermissible where it deprives the defendant of fair notice); Adamo, 534 F.2d at 39 (holding that the defendant had fair notice of the charges against him because the difference in the facts underlying the two overt acts was slight); Clay, 495 F.2d at 706 (holding that the variance between the overt acts alleged and proved was not fatal because the defendants had adequate notice that evidence of these acts might be presented at trial); United States v. Crowder, 346 F.2d 1, 3 (6th Cir.) (holding that the variance between facts alleged in the indictment and proved at trial was not fatal because the defendant had notice of what he must defend against), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 249, 15 L.Ed.2d 161 (1965). 36 In addition to prejudicing a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to notice of the charges against her, a variance can be so great as to violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy because a conviction based on the indictment would not bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense; see Irwin, 654 F.2d at 683; see also Berger, 295 U.S. at 83, 55 S.Ct. at 631 (holding that a variance is impermissible where it deprives the defendant of the right against double jeopardy); DiPasquale, 740 F.2d at 1294 (holding that a variance between overt acts is impermissible when it violates the defendant's right against double jeopardy); Adamo, 534 F.2d at 39 (holding that the variance in overt acts did not prejudice the defendant's right to avoid double jeopardy because the difference in the facts underlying the two overt acts was slight); Crowder, 346 F.2d at 3 (holding that the variance between facts alleged in the indictment and facts proved at trial was permissible because the charge in the indictment protected him against another prosecution). 37 Finally, where a legally defective element is alleged in the indictment, but a legally sufficient element is proved at trial (making it impossible to determine upon which element the conviction is based), a variance may prejudice the defendant's substantial right to be convicted on legally permissible grounds. See Yates, 354 U.S. at 312, 77 S.Ct. at 1073 (requiring a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected), cited in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 55-56, 112 S.Ct. 466, 472-73, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991) (limiting Yates to cases where there is a general verdict and one of the possible bases of conviction ... was ... legally inadequate); Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 415, 77 S.Ct. 963, 979, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957) (overturning conspiracy convictions because they might have rested on an impermissible ground); United States v. Self, 2 F.3d 1071, 1093 (10th Cir.1993) (reversing the defendant's conspiracy conviction because the jury could have based its verdict on a legally ... infirm objective); Irwin, 654 F.2d at 680 (overturning the defendant's conspiracy conviction because it cannot be determined whether the jury based its conspiracy verdict on an invalid ground); United States v. Beverly, 913 F.2d 337, 362 & n. 35 (7th Cir.1990) (noting that [n]umerous courts have reversed general verdicts on the basis of Yates where one of the objects in a multi-object count is legally invalid and listing such decisions), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1052, 111 S.Ct. 766, 112 L.Ed.2d 786 (1991), and cert. granted, 498 U.S. 1082, 111 S.Ct. 951, 112 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1991), and aff'd, 502 U.S. 46, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991); Cramer v. Fahner, 683 F.2d 1376, 1379 (7th Cir.1982) (overturning the defendant's conspiracy conviction based on the appellate court's inability to tell whether the jury based its verdict on the valid or invalid counts), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016, 103 S.Ct. 376, 74 L.Ed.2d 509 (1982); United States v. Head, 641 F.2d 174, 179 (4th Cir.1981) (overturning the defendant's conspiracy conviction because there was no way of knowing whether [the defendant] was convicted for an offense barred by limitations), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S.Ct. 3113, 77 L.Ed.2d 1367 (1983); cf. United States v. McNutt, 908 F.2d 561, 565 (10th Cir.1990) (upholding the defendant's conspiracy conviction where the jury indicated by special verdict that it relied both on a valid and an invalid underlying offense agreed upon by the ... conspirators), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1084, 111 S.Ct. 955, 112 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1991). 38 In the instant case, Ms. Stoner has failed to establish that the variance between the untimely overt acts alleged in the indictment and the evidence at trial prejudiced her substantial rights in any way. In particular, neither at trial nor on appeal has Ms. Stoner claimed that she was unfairly surprised by the proof of the timely overt acts at trial. Cf. Fruehauf Corp., 577 F.2d at 1057 (noting the defendant's failure to claim that he was surprised or misled by the variance in proof of overt acts as an indication that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to fair notice had not been prejudiced by that variance); Adamo, 534 F.2d at 39 (same); Goble, 512 F.2d at 466 (same); Brulay, 383 F.2d at 351 (same). Also, at no point did she file a motion for a bill of particulars in an effort to learn what timely overt act the government would attempt to prove at trial so that she could better prepare her defense, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f). Such a motion could have included a claim that her conspiracy prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. Cf. Brulay, 383 F.2d at 351 (noting the defendant's failure to move for a bill of particulars as an indication that the variance between the overt act alleged and that proved did not affect the defendant's ... substantial rights); United States v. Kruse, 415 F.Supp. 701, 704 (W.D.Pa.1976) (same), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 547 F.2d 1165 (3d Cir.1977). 6 Nor has Ms. Stoner claimed that the variance in overt acts put her in danger of double jeopardy. Cf. Adamo, 534 F.2d at 39 (noting the defendant's failure to claim that his right against double jeopardy was violated by the variance as an indication that such right had not been prejudiced by the variance in proof of overt acts). Finally, neither at trial nor on appeal has Ms. Stoner argued that the untimely overt acts alleged in the indictment created the risk that her conspiracy conviction was based on legally insufficient grounds. See United States v. Wilkinson, 754 F.2d 1427, 1432 (2d Cir.) (holding that a Yates issue is subject to waiver), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1019, 105 S.Ct. 3482, 87 L.Ed.2d 617 (1985). Indeed, although a review of jury instructions is often necessary in order to assess this final kind of potential prejudice, Ms. Stoner has not included these instructions in the record on appeal. Accordingly, because Ms. Stoner has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the variance between the overt acts alleged in her indictment and the overt acts proved at trial, the district court did not err in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment and her motion for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds of the indictment's failure to allege a timely overt act.