Is a defendant required to prove at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud another of property within the statute of limitations?

of limitations." (People v. Milstein (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1168, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 290.) Romero contends the trial court erred by not instructing the jurors they must unanimously agree at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred within the statute of limitations. He asserts the prosecution was required to prove that at least one overt act occurred within three years of his arraignment date, on or before March 27, 2009. Romero states that of the 19 overt acts alleged in the conspiracy count, only three occurred within the statute of limitations (overt acts 16, 17 and 19). Romero contends the funds at issue in those three overt acts were not intended for commodities trading, but were investments in TradeCo, and the jury could find that those three overt acts were not part of the conspiracy to defraud another of property.