What is the effect of a jury's instruction that a single act is in effect the act of all conspirators?

In contrast, and as the trial court also noted, the jury was instructed that the act of one conspirator was in effect the act of all conspirators, and that it was not necessary to the guilt of any one defendant that he himself committed the overt act, if he was one of the conspirators when the act was committed. In other words, the jury was correctly instructed that it could consider the acts of appellant's coconspirators in order to prove the overt act and convict him of conspiracy. (See People v. Marsh (1962) 58 Cal.2d 732, 746, 26 Cal.Rptr. 300, 376 P.2d 300; People v. Cooks (1983) 141 [169 Cal.App.3d 299] Cal.App.3d 224, 311-312, 190 Cal.Rptr. 211.) The evidence was more than sufficient to establish that appellant's coconspirators committed the overt acts charged, and appellant does not contend otherwise. When read in conjunction with the instruction given, the verdicts are not inconsistent. ²

Page 165