How have courts interpreted the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases involving assault and disturbing the peace?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jones, B226771 (Cal. App. 2012):
In the instant case, the target offenses on which the jury was instructed for application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine were three misdemeanors: disturbing the peace, assault, and battery. Relying primarily on People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1179, defendant contends that it was a
Page 18
"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.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted the natural and probable consequences doctrine in the context of an attempted murder case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of natural and probable consequences in a murder case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the standard of proof in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted statutory references to the Penal Code in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
What is the nature and probable consequences of the natural and probable consequence of the crime? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted evidence in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted jury instructions in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the felony-murder instruction in cases involving assault with a deadly weapon? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of self-defense in cases that address other legal doctrines? (California, United States of America)
