Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: jury instructions on late-joining accomplices

Text: The trial court submitted to the jury the question whether Najee Muslim and Frankie Cruz were accomplices. Defendant argues that the court should have instructed the jury on the possibility that, if Muslim and Cruz were not accomplices from the beginning, they became accomplices after the robbers returned from Domino's Pizza with the proceeds of the robbery. An accomplice is defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant. (§ 1111.) The issue whether Muslim and Cruz could be late-joining accomplices under this definition is more complex than either defendant or the Attorney General recognizes. Even if not an accomplice from the beginning of the enterprise, Cruz became an accomplice to the robbery when the robbers returned with their loot and he drove the getaway car, because the crime of robbery continues until the perpetrators have reached a place of safety. (See People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1164-1165, 282 Cal.Rptr. 450, 811 P.2d 742.) Muslim, a passenger, was not necessarily an accomplice to the robbery, but might have become one if, by his conduct, he showed that he was participating in the asportation of the robbery proceeds. On the other hand, neither Muslim nor Cruz could be accomplices to the murder if they did not aid and abet the robbery until after the murder occurred. (See People v. Pulido (1997) 15 Cal.4th 713, 716, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 936 P.2d 1235.) Although defendant could have submitted an instruction explaining the circumstances under which Muslim and Cruz might have been accomplices to the robbery but not to the murder, there is no authority for the defense claim that the trial court must so instruct on its own motion. There is also no reason to believe that the jury was misled, or defendant prejudiced, by the absence of such an instruction. The only purpose of instructions on whether Muslim or Cruz could be late-joining accomplices would be to assist the jury in deciding whether to view their testimony with caution. (See People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 398-399, 85 Cal.Rptr. 409, 466 P.2d 961.) In view of the entire circumstances of the casethe presence of both Muslim and Cruz in the car used to transport defendant to Domino's Pizza, their willing attendance at a party after the robbery and murder, Muslim's plea bargain, and Cruz's nonappearance at trialwe have no doubt that the jurors viewed their testimony with extreme caution.