California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Brady, 190 Cal.App.3d 124, 235 Cal.Rptr. 248 (Cal. App. 1987):
Defendant takes his theory of culpability from People v. Markus (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 477, 147 Cal.Rptr. 151. The person charged as the aider and abettor in that case was the driver of a car, parked in front of the burgled residence. The actual burglar, carrying his loot, had just left the residence and entered the car. Defendant claimed that he had no knowledge of his companion's criminal purpose until that moment. (Id., at p. 480, 147 Cal.Rptr. 151.) The jury asked if defendant could be found guilty of aiding and abetting the burglary if this claim were true. The trial court answered yes. The reviewing court reversed the conviction, reasoning: "It is the intent at the moment of entry of the structure which appellant must have shared with his companion in order to be guilty of burglary as a principal. If appellant did not know at that moment what was afoot, there is no way that he could have shared the specific criminal intent required for guilt as a principal. If, as the jury may have believed, appellant did not learn that there had been a burglary until his companion entered the automobile, he could not have shared his companion's criminal intent at the moment of entry; he simply could not have been a principal. A contrary holding would eliminate the statutory distinction between principal and accessory. The trial court's instruction to the contrary was mistaken." (Id., at pp. 481-482, 147 Cal.Rptr. 151.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.