California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lippert, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 535, 53 Cal.App.5th 304 (Cal. App. 2020):
Previously, under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, an aider and abettor could " ... be held criminally responsible ... not only for the crime he or she intended to aid and abet (the target crime), but also for any other crime [nontarget crime] that is the "natural and probable consequence" of the target crime. [Citation.] To find an aider and abettor guilty of a nontarget crime under the natural and probable consequences theory, the jury must find that the defendant aided and abetted the target crime, that a coparticipant in the target crime also committed a nontarget crime, and that this nontarget crime was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime the defendant aided and abetted. [Citation.]" ( People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 92, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 378, 418 P.3d 309.)
The natural and probable consequences doctrine did not apply to first degree murder ( People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 166-167, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972 ); an aider and abettor could not be guilty of first degree murder unless he or she personally deliberated, premeditated, and intended to kill. ( Id. at p. 166, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972.) However, it did apply to second degree murder. ( Id. at pp. 165-166, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.