To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the jury need not find that all the overt acts underlying the conspiracy took place within the limitations period, as long as one overt act occurred within that time. Here, an indictment charged appellant and others with 55 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy for the sale and distribution of counterfeit software, netting cash proceeds in excess of $2,500,000. There is a 3-year limitations period for that offense. (Pen. Code, sec. 801.) The Court of Appeal here followed the Sixth District decision of People v. Smith (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1182, in which it held a trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on the statute of limitations when the defendant does not raise the limitations issue as a factual matter at trial. Further, appellant may not raise the asserted instructional error for the first time on appeal. (Ibid.)