"Malfeasance in office is generally defined to be the wrongful or unjust doing of some official act which the doer has no right to perform, accompanied by some evil intent or motive." State v. Wallace, 214 A.2d 886, 890 (Del. 1963). Earlier, reference was made to today's climate of lawyer credibility.

The basic requirement is that there be an unlawful combination, and that the parties have a common design or purpose. If a person understands the unlawful nature of the acts taking place, and nevertheless assists in any manner in the carrying out of the common scheme, he thereupon becomes a conspirator to commit the offense. State v. Cole, 1 W.W. Harr. 279, 114 A. 201; State v. Biter, 10 Terry 503, 119 A.2d 894; State v. Wallace, Del.Super., 214 A.2d 886. We think there is sufficient evidence of the joint participation in this crime of these defendants to warrant the inference that they had the common design or purpose of robbing Byler. The matter was therefore properly submitted to the jury which found them guilty.

These are common law crimes not specifically, by statute, made crimes in Delaware but, by reason of 11 Del. C. § 105, they are carried into our law as common law crimes. State v. Seitz, 1 Terry 572, 14 A.2d 710; State v. Wallace, Del., 214 A.2d 886. The crimes are, respectively, the wrongful doing of some official act, and the wrongful doing of an unofficial act. In both instances the act must be accompanied by some evil intent or motive, or with such gross negligence as to be equivalent to fraud.

See MRPC Christiana LLC v. Crown Bank, 2017 WL 6606587, at *5-6 (Del. Super. Dec. 26, 2017); Bank of New York Mellon v. Henry, 2017 WL 3902631, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 5, 2017); Cuonzo v. Shore, 2008 WL 193298, at *4 (Del. Super. Jan. 24, 2008). See 11 Del. C. § 512; Holland v State, 744 A.2d 980, 982 (Del. 2000); State v. Wallace, 214 A.2d 886, 889-90 (Del. 1963). Although Wang endeavored at trial to paint the massage therapists as rogue employees who deceived him so they might earn extra money on the side, the evidence does not support that conclusion. Wang allowed his employees to live in the locations where they worked, and he lived there with them at times.

It is sufficient that a co-conspirator commit the overt act.State v. Wallace, 214 A.2d 886, 890 (Del.Super.Ct. 1963).See Robertson v. State, 630 A.2d 1084, 1095 (Del. 1993); Alston v. State, 554 A.2d 304, 312 (Del. 1989).

211 A.2d at 850. The charge to the jury in the same case is found at 214 A.2d at 886. The defendant in Clatsop County performed all of the illegal acts leading up to the actual receipt of the $500. It was there he began and continued the solicitation for a bribe.