Is a defense counsel's statement to the jury that someone who says, "Go do this, punch him, hit him, shoot him," is an aider and abettor?

Defense counsel's statement to the jury that someone who says, " 'Go do this, punch him, hit him, shoot him,' " is an aider and abettor, in effect provided the jury with a legal definition of the phrase. Arguments that involve legal questions such as alleged misstatements of the law are subject to de novo review. (People v. McDonald (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1379.)

"[U]nder the general principles of aiding and abetting, 'an aider and abettor [must] act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.' [Citation.]" (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 262.) A person who "aids and abets the commission of a crime is a 'principal' in the crime, and thus shares the guilt of the actual perpetrator." (Id. at p. 259.)

Defense counsel's description omitted the knowledge and intent components of aiding and abetting, rendering the statement incomplete and incorrect. (See People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 559 [a jury may not be instructed that the law "conclusively presumes the intention of the accused solely from his or her voluntary acts," such as yelling encouraging words at someone committing a criminal act, because such an instruction would " ' "effectively eliminate intent as an ingredient of the offense" ' "].) By presenting an incomplete definition, defense counsel misstated the law. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err by sustaining the prosecutor's objection.

Page 46