Section 401 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

A.
AIDING AND ABETTING AND RELATED DOCTRINES
400. Aiding and Abetting: General Principles
A person may be guilty of a crime in two ways. One, he or she may have
directly committed the crime. I will call that person the perpetrator.
Two, he or she may have aided and abetted a perpetrator, who directly
committed the crime.
A person is guilty of a crime whether he or she committed it personally
or aided and abetted the perpetrator.
[Under some specific circumstances, if the evidence establishes aiding
and abetting of one crime, a person may also be found guilty of other
crimes that occurred during the commission of the first crime.]
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, August 2009, April 2010
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on aiding and abetting when the
prosecutor relies on it as a theory of culpability. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35
Cal.3d 547, 560–561 [199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318].)
When the prosecution is relying on aiding and abetting, give this instruction before
other instructions on aiding and abetting to introduce this theory of culpability to the
jury.
An aider and abettor may be found guilty of a different crime or degree of crime
than the perpetrator if the aider and abettor and the perpetrator do not have the same
mental state. (People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1166 [91
Cal.Rptr.3d 874]; People v. Woods (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1570, 1577–1578 [11
Cal.Rptr.2d 231]; People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1115–1116 [108
Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 24 P.3d 1210].)
If the prosecution is also relying on the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
the court should also instruct with the last bracketed paragraph. Depending on which
theories are relied on by the prosecution, the court should then instruct as follows.
Intended Crimes (Target Crimes)
If the prosecution’s theory is that the defendant intended to aid and abet the crime
or crimes charged (target crimes), give CALCRIM No. 401, Aiding and Abetting:
Intended Crimes.
Natural & Probable Consequences Doctrine (Non-Target Crimes)
If the prosecution’s theory is that any of the crimes charged were committed as a
natural and probable consequence of the target crime, CALCRIM No. 402 or 403
161

557 fn.14; In re Michael T., supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 911.
•
Requirements for Aiding and Abetting. People v. Beeman, supra, 35 Cal.3d at
pp. 560–561.
•
Withdrawal. People v. Norton, supra, 161 Cal.App.2d at p. 403; People v. Ross,
supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 404–405.
•
This Instruction Correct re Withdrawal Defense. People v. Battle (2011) 198
Cal.App.4th 50, 67 [129 Cal.Rptr.3d 828].
RELATED ISSUES
Perpetrator versus Aider and Abettor
For purposes of culpability, the law does not distinguish between perpetrators and
aiders and abettors; however, the required mental states that must be proved for
each are different. One who engages in conduct that is an element of the charged
crime is a perpetrator, not an aider and abettor of the crime. (People v. Coo