 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
People v Beeman
S. Ct. California, 1984
Author:- Sam
Biers
Facts: The Df was not present during the commission of the offenses he was found guilty of. His acquaintances, Burk and Gray, committed and were found guilty. Df at issue was found guilty under the theory he aided and abetted the crimes. Three days prior to the commission Gray stated Df and Burke discussed robbing the jewelry of a relative of the Df. Df did not want to participate. Some time earlier Df had given floor plans of the victim’s house to Gray, for the purpose of comparing it with the layout of another.
Issue: Whether the instructions to jury adequately informed the jury that the criminal intent required to convict as an aider and abettor is separate from the actual crimes of robbery, burglary, etc.?
Holding: No they were not adequate and they were erroneous.
Procedure: Trial Ct. conviction for robbery, burglary, f. imprisonment, destruction of telephone, and assault with intent to commit a felony. Reversed.
Rule: An aider and abetter must act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator AND with the intent or purpose either of committing or of encouraging or facilitating commission of the offense.
Ct Rationale: The jury was allowed to convict the Df of the same offenses as the perpetrators without finding that the Df had the same criminal intent. Aiding and abetting requires proof of intent to aid. Proof that the aider and abetter act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator AND with the intent or purpose either of committing or of encouraging or facilitating commission of the offense must be provided to support a conviction under the law. The instruction inadequately defines aiding and abetting b/c it fails to insure that an aider and abettor will be found to have the required mental state with regard to his own act.
PL A: The instruction requires no more than to explain that the aider and abettor have knowledge of the perpetrator’s criminal purpose and do a voluntary act which in fact aids the perpetrator.
Def A: The instruction cannot substitute an element of knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent for the element of criminal intent of the accomplice.