What is the test for instructing the jury on the theory of aiding and abetting?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Davenport, G045366 (Cal. App. 2012):
It was therefore unnecessary to instruct the jury on a theory of aiding and abetting. The additional instruction was an "'abstract' instruction, i.e., 'one which is correct in law but irrelevant[.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Roland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 282.) "'[I]n most cases the giving of an abstract instruction is only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.'" (Ibid.) We find this to be such a case, but nonetheless, we evaluate the error for potential prejudice and conclude it was harmless under even the most stringent standard. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18.)
Page 7
"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.
