Is a public official liable for aiding and abetting a violation of section 1090 of the California Penal Code?

Assessing criminal liability against a public official for aiding and abetting a violation of section 1090 necessarily requires inquiry into the public official's subjective motivations when the prosecution is based on the official's legislative acts. Specifically, Penal Code section 31 provides: All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, ... whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, ... are principals in any crime so committed. To be criminally liable, 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. ( People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318, italics added.) Thus, to obtain a conviction under an aider and abettor theory, it is not sufficient to demonstrate merely that the defendant assisted the perpetrator with knowledge of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose; the prosecutor must also prove the defendant's fundamental purpose, motive and intent [was] to aid and assist the perpetrator in the latter's commission of the crime. ( Id. at p. 556, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318, italics added).