Court Opinion

ID: 9582035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:46.089019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:24.437813
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.† Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the court’s conclusion that the jury instructions given in this case were inadequate because they failed to inform the jury that appellant could be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime only if he acted with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging or facilitating the commission thereof.
I respectfully dissent, however, from the reversal of appellant’s conviction. The verdicts clearly demonstrated that the jury disbelieved the testimony of appellant which would have supported a finding that he did not have the requisite criminal intent. Further, the record amply supports the conclusion that appellant acted knowingly and intentionally in encouraging and facilitating the commission of the offenses. Accordingly, the trial court’s error in refusing to give the modified instruction sought by appellant was harmless and the conviction should be affirmed. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [299 P.2d 243].)

 Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.