Does a court have a duty to instruct on elements of aider and abettor liability in a factor (b) crime?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Williams, S030553 (Cal. 2013):

repeatedly held that the trial court has no duty, absent a request, to instruct on elements of crimes proved under factor (b). (People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 72.) Defendant did not request an instruction on the elements of aider and abettor liability in connection with the section 190.3, factor (b) crimes, but he contends that the alteration to CALJIC No. 8.87 gave rise to a duty to so instruct. We disagree: "[T]he instructions were not so vital to the jury's evaluation of defendant's prior actions as to require that they be given without a request." (People v. Cain, supra, at p. 72.) As in People v. Cain, "the jury had before it evidence and argument from which it could rationally assess the degree of culpability [the] defendant bore in the prior incident. The proper focus for consideration of prior violent crimes in the penalty phase is on the facts of the defendant's past actions as they reflect on his character, rather than on the labels to be assigned the past crimes . . . ." (Id. at p. 73.)

Other Questions


Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent? (California, United States of America)
Does the trial court erred in instructing the jury that an aider and abettor is equally guilty of the crime under CALCRIM No. 400? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 186.22.22 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant and an aider and abettor of the crime are accused of the same crime? (California, United States of America)
Does section 31 of the California Criminal Code permit an aider and abettor to be convicted of a lesser crime or lesser degree of crime than the ultimate crime committed by the perpetrator? (California, United States of America)
What is the harmless error analysis that a reviewing court should use when a trial court's jury instructions incorrectly define an element of a charged offense? (California, United States of America)
What is the legal test for an aider and abettor's liability for an unintended crime? (California, United States of America)
Does the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that an aider and abettor must have knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the court should have deleted reference to irrelevant mitigating factors from the instructions given to the jury regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant entitled to instructions on the elements of alleged other factor (b) crimes on request? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.