California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013 (Cal. 1996):
In one respect, however, the superior court did indeed err. It instructed on the natural-and-probable-consequence rule itself. In so doing, it instructed "abstractly"--that is, in correct legal terms but without factual applicability (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th [926 P.2d 1033] 238, 282, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897). It should not have done so. (See ibid.)
The superior court's error in giving an "abstract" instruction on the natural-and-probable-consequence rule violated California law, but did not implicate the United States Constitution. (See People v. Rowland, supra,
Page 847
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.