Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated; and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, shall hereafter be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals, and no other facts need be alleged in any indictment against such an accessory than are required in an indictment against his principal. Idaho, consistent with many Thus, other jurisdictions, has abolished the distinction between principals and aiders and abettors, and instead treats aiding and abetting as a theory under which first-degree murder can be proved and not as a separate offense or a crime of a different nature. See State v. Ayres, 70 Idaho 18, 25, 211 P.2d 142, 145 (1949) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., United States v. Ginyard, 511 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory (B) holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory (C) holding the information charges one offense involuntary manslaughter and that it was sufficient to put defendant on trial upon either the theory that he was a principal or the theory that he was an aider and abettor (D) holding that plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be calculated on the involuntary loan theory (E) holding that although plaintiff was liable for medical services rendered he was not bound by the amount of the charges listed in the admission contract as he was entitled to question the reasonableness of the charges
Output (English): holding that the pretrial order did not adequately disclose a theory because it did not give notice of that theory