California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Perez, 103 Cal.App.4th 203, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 505 (Cal. App. 2002):
In addition to the arguments of counsel, the state of the evidence convinces us of the need for a new trial. The evidence of defendant's intent to personally manufacture methamphetamine was not strong. The prosecution presented no evidence he possessed any of the other chemicals or instruments required to complete the manufacturing process. The jury could have rejected defendant's stated intent and concluded the stain on his pants indicated manufacturing activities. However, based on our review of the record, it is probable the jury found defendant guilty solely on the aider and abettor liability theory. Therefore, the judgment must be reversed. (People v. Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1131, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365, 847 P.2d 45.)
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.