California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print


When an abettor is charged with an offense he did not abet, under the theory that the second crime was a natural and probable consequence of aiding the first crime, the trial court is not required to sua sponte instruct the jury on the elements of the second crime.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 02/13/2001
  • Published 02/13/2001


  • EPSTEIN, Acting P.J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellees:
  •  Kathy M. Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Steven Gonzales., Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant Michael Ronnie Gonzales, Jr.,  Diane E. Berley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Woodland Hills, for Defendant and Appellant Manuel R. Jimenez., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Copied to clipboard