What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequence doctrine?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Fountain, B263890 (Cal. App. 2016):
2. Although the evidence might have supported liability under the natural and probable consequence doctrine, the jury was not instructed on that form of aiding and abetting. Thus, it is not relevant to our discussion. (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117.)
"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
What is the nature and probable consequences of the natural and probable consequence of the crime? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (California, United States of America)
