would write the illegal prescriptions and deliver them to Price, who would use various “script runners” to fill the prescriptions. The state argues that the multiple counts of the indictment charged multiple conspiracies, not under the general conspiracy statute codified at Code Ann. § 26-3201 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1335; as amended), but rather under a special conspiracy statute found at § 79A-812 of the Controlled Substances Act (Code Ann. § 79A-812; Ga. L. 1974, pp. 221, 244): “Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this Chapter shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” See Hammock v. Zant, 244 Ga. 863 (262 SE2d 82) (1979) (<HOLDING>). Held: It is true that when a conspiracy
holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy holding that in order for one to be guilty of a conspiracy under  79a812 one or more of the conspirators must commit an overt act as required by  263201