How has the jury been instructed on the doctrine of aider and abettor liability in a motor vehicle accident case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ballard, B282339 (Cal. App. 2019):
Notably, the trial court, in compliance with People v. Chiu, did not instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine of aider and abettor liability.
Finally, the trial court instructed the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent.
None of these instructions was erroneous.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
What is the test for determining whether a defendant is liable for a motor vehicle accident under the California Vehicle Accident Act or the California Motor Vehicle Act? (California, United States of America)
Can a plaintiff bring an action under the California Motor Vehicle Accident Prevention Act for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident? (California, United States of America)
Does the phrase "as a result of" in a motor vehicle accident apply to a section of the Motor Vehicle Accident Act? (California, United States of America)
Does section 3110 of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Code of Civil Procedure (Motor Vehicle Accident and Accident Benefits Act) apply to a mechanic's lien claimant? (California, United States of America)
In a motor vehicle accident case, in what circumstances will a plaintiff be able to argue that the instruction on unavoidable accident is incorrect? (California, United States of America)
Does the last paragraph of the last clear chance instruction on contributory negligence in a motor vehicle accident case conflict with the previous paragraph in a similar case? (California, United States of America)
Is there a mistake in the instruction of sua sponte instruction on accident in a motor vehicle case? (California, United States of America)
In a motor vehicle accident case, how have the courts interpreted the standard factor (a)-(b) and (b) instruction in determining the severity of the accident? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defendant in a motor vehicle accident case to argue that the accident was not a crime? (California, United States of America)
Does the standard instruction in a motor vehicle accident (CALCRIM No. 3160) require a pinpoint instruction? (California, United States of America)
