Opinion ID: 1195356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Instruction on liability as an aider and abettor

Text: Defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury that defendant could be found guilty of murder either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor, because the prosecutor had contended throughout the proceedings that defendant was the person who shot Detective Williams. Although defendant does not contend that there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could have found him guilty as an aider and abettor, he contends the instruction violated his right to notice of the defenses he should present, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. As we have explained in earlier cases, an accusatory pleading charging a defendant with murder need not specify the theory of murder on which the prosecution intends to rely. ( People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 557, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171, and cases cited.) Normally, the accused will receive adequate notice of the prosecution's theory of the case from the testimony presented at the preliminary hearing.... ( Ibid. ) In the present case, we believe that defendant was put on actual notice through the conspiracy charge that he could be subject to accomplice liability for the murder of Detective Williams. (See People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 183, 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664 [an accomplice is one who either aids and abets in the commission of the offense or conspires to commit the offense]; 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law, (2d ed. 1988) Introduction to Crimes, § 85, pp. 100-101 [aiding and abetting liability may be based upon evidence of conspiracy].)