California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Replogle, E053711 (Cal. App. 2014):
A defendant's "'knowledge that an act which is criminal was intended, and his action taken with the intent that the act be encouraged or facilitated, are sufficient to impose liability on him for any reasonably foreseeable offense committed as a consequence by the perpetrator. It is the intent to encourage and bring about conduct that is criminal, not the specific intent that is an element of the target offense, which . . . must be found by the jury.' [Citations.]" (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 188.) "The trial court should grant a prosecutor's request that the jury be instructed on the 'natural and probable consequences' rule only when (1) the record contains substantial evidence that the defendant intended to encourage or assist a confederate in committing a target offense, and (2) the jury could reasonably find that the crime actually committed by the
Page 68
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.