What is the standard of review for an aider and abettor in a sexual assault case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Alonzo, No. B212982, No. GA071819-01 (Cal. App. 2010):
v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1014-1015.) We view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the judgment. (Id. at p. 1015 [reviewing court must accept logical inferences drawn from the evidence even if it would conclude otherwise].) We do not reevaluate witness credibility nor do we reweigh the evidence. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) The same standard of review applies to prosecutions relying upon circumstantial evidence of guilt. (Ibid.)
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. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1123.) The trier of fact must find the intent to encourage and bring about criminal conduct, not the specific intent that is an element of the target offense. (Ibid.)
"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.
